A Taxonomy of Project Management Offices and Their Organizational Project Management Landscapes

Abstract

Organizational project management (OPM) integrates project-related activities in organizations, including project management offices (PMOs) and their services. Using an organizational design perspective, this study models nine different PMO service delivery categories along scope, frequency, and delivery entity and identifies their particular OPM contexts (i.e., landscapes). Two hundred and sixty-five responses to a global survey identified nine types of OPM landscapes, grouped into three regions, with their particular logic of investment in OPM and their particular PMO service mix. The framework helps practitioners set up their PMOs in line with established practices. Academics benefit from a base for theorizing organizational designs using OPM.

Keywords

organizational project management project management offices organizational design organizational design archetypes PMO types

Introduction

Organizational project management (OPM) is “the integration of the primarily project (management)-related activities of an organization into a cohesive network of activities which, by themselves and in their interaction, can be understood, planned, and managed for the benefit of the organization and its stakeholders” (Müller et al., 2019. p. 1). These activities include project, program, portfolio management and governance; project management offices (PMOs); and many others (see Figure 1). By looking at the entirety of all project management–related activities rather than a single activity (like project management only), OPM created “a new sphere of management” (Aubry et al., 2007, p. 332), which, through situation-contingent adjustments of its constituting elements (i.e., the project management–related activities), provides for resilience in organizations’ efforts to accomplish strategic objectives (Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018).

Figure 1.

The onion model of OPM (Müller et al., 2019).

Organizational project management models are representative theoretical perspectives toward OPM, such as processes or management domains (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2013) or the diversity of activities, clustered as elements and their relationships (Müller et al., 2019). Among these elements are project management offices (PMOs) with their variety of service offerings and variety in the frequency of engagement in projects. The most frequent services typically delivered by PMOs to the organization and their projects are listed in the Appendix and are referred to as organizational project management office (OPMO) services throughout this article. These services are not always delivered by PMOs, as shown, for example, in studies by Artto et al. (2011) and Müller et al. (2016a), where the former identified the functional organization and the latter the project managers themselves as service provider, in organizations without formal PMO entities. The relationship between the different configurational settings of OPM elements and the related OPMO service implementations and their delivery entities is unknown, which leaves practitioners in a vacuum when designing their OPM infrastructure and the associated OPMO services. This bears the risk of suboptimal service integration in their particular organizational context, compromising efficiency and effectiveness in pursuing organizational objectives. Simultaneously, academics lack a basis to theorize and describe this relationship to understand and predict its behavior, thereby threatening the quality of their organizational designs. Hence, without the knowledge of the relationship between OPMO services, their delivery entities, and their OPM context, investment costs for both are at risk. This mismatch might also be one of the reasons why PMOs frequently change their role and mission to improve their adaptation to the organizational context (Aubry et al., 2011).

Past studies have conceptualized the relationship between PMOs and their wider organizational context (Hobbs et al., 2008), and have empirically assessed the particular organizational context of PMOs in one or a few organizations (Aubry et al., 2012) but not from the perspective of OPM and the particular expressions and combinations of its elements and its relation to service delivery. Other studies investigated the types of services offered by PMOs (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007) but not the frequency of engagement for their delivery. The present study builds on that and starts by developing a model for PMO service delivery and then continues to a taxonomy of OPM contexts—here called landscapes—that are specific to PMO service deliveries. We refer to OPM landscapes as the particular combination of different levels of expression of OPM elements constituting the context of a PMO type. The research question is:

RQ: What are the particular OPM landscape profiles associated with different combinations of PMO service delivery scope and frequency?

To answer this question, we model the OPMO service delivery along the dimensions of (1) scope of service provision, and (2) frequency of involvement of the PMO (or functional organization, where appropriate) in the delivery of these services. This results in nine different combinations of service delivery scope and delivery unit involvement. We call these combinations PMO types.

Subsequently, we identify the OPM landscapes structured by their particular PMO type. The landscapes are described in terms of the expressions of the 22 elements of the OPM model developed by Müller et al. (2019) (Figure 1). The study design calls for collecting quantitative data on the level of expression of the OPM elements in organizations (i.e., their particular implementation). This allows for quantitative validation of the elements and the identification of their implementation patterns. The interpretation of the landscape patterns followed the element descriptions and contingencies outlined by Müller et al. (2019) together with the landscapes’ demographic patterns as identified in the present study. Hence, the study provides an observation tower view of the particular landscapes associated with each PMO type. Examples of these particular landscapes include the most likely type of governance paradigm and level of projectification to be expected in a PMO with only rudimentary service delivery, as compared to a PMO providing intensive service levels to the wider organization.

The study takes a realism stance in a deductive, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based approach, which assessed organizations worldwide on their particular OPMO and PMO implementation.

The study is of value for practitioners as it provides information about existing practices. Academics benefit from enhanced OPM and OPMO insights through the extension of the OPM theory outlined by Müller et al. (2019) and the PMO context contingencies developed by Aubry and colleagues in their various studies (Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018). The study continues prior work on organizational design that identified PMO categories by project types in public administration organizations (Aubry & Brunet, 2016) into the context of OPM and its focus on the network of project-related activities within organizations.

The article continues with a brief review of the most relevant literature, followed by sections on methodology, analysis and results, discussion, conclusions, and Appendix.

Literature Review and Theoretical Lens

This article is written for a Special Issue of Project Management Journal^® (PMJ) in honor of the lifetime achievements of Professor Monique Aubry, whose work has tremendously impacted research and understanding of the nature of PMOs in organizations over the last two decades. To frame the present study in the context of her work, reference is naturally made to many of her and her frequent coauthors’ publications.

Organizational Project Management

Organizational project management emerged in the 1990s as a rather undefined term (Packendorff, 1995; Partington, 1996), which was subsequently conceptualized by both professional organizations (PMI, 2003) and academia (Crawford, 2006). The former emphasized the role of OPM processes and functions in improving project management maturity, whereas the latter addressed the distinction between espoused and practiced theories. Academics used individual case studies to scope the OPM concept (Aubry et al., 2012) and then diversified into organizational matters such as processes and new subject areas and management theories within the scope of OPM (Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018; Drouin & Jugdev, 2014). Further expansion of subject areas followed, including industry specifics, models, standards, and methodologies, and added to the diversified picture of OPM.

Early studies linking OPM design with that of PMOs looked at the position, knowledge, and action of PMOs in their organizational context (Aubry et al., 2007), which later turned into studies on frameworks for PMO categories in their OPM context. Examples include Aubry and Brunet's (2016) assessment of an extensive public administration, identifying organizational characteristics, project characteristics, functions, and performance as causal criteria for PMO design. To the best of our knowledge, no study exists on the specifics of the expressions of OPM elements across sectors, geographies, and diversity of organizations related to PMO services and their frequency of application.

To structure the diversity of subjects in OPM, the Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management categorized the variety of OPM research into strategic, organizational, human, and other topics (Sankaran et al., 2017). Complementing these categories with a systematic literature review of the OPM literature brought up the OPM onion model (Müller et al., 2019), which integrates earlier identified separate subject areas into one model of seven layers, hosting 22 OPM elements, as depicted in Figure 1.

The seven layers represent the governance layers of OPM, whereby each outer layer governs the next inner layer, starting from an organization-wide perspective (organization’s philosophy) on the outside and narrowing down to the management of individual projects. The characteristics of each layer stem from its constituting elements, whose relationships can be integrated (e.g., in business integration) or complementary (e.g., in organizational philosophy). The elements’ strengths of implementation (aka, expression) vary across organizations and constitute an organization’s particular OPM implementation pattern. The model was chosen as to its popularity and the relevance for research literature, from which it originally emerged (ibid.). The Appendix provides the definitions of the elements and their underlying literature and measurement. A qualitative inquiry validated the model using a random sample of 20 organizations in the Netherlands and China (Sankaran et al., 2019).

Project Management Offices

Project management offices are organizational entities with various mandates, roles, and structures, which are continuously adjusted to organizational needs (Aubry et al., 2011). Project management offices are perceived very differently over time, ranging, for example, from being a structure for standardizing governance processes and facilitating the sharing of resources, methodologies, tools, and techniques (PMI, 2013) to an “organizational entity operating independently or with other PMOs, offering mandated services” (AIPMO, 2022, p.1). Hence, definitions span from a police function to ensure disciplined project management to a service provider within the organization. Many publications have addressed PMO types. The most popular is a dichotomy of tactical and strategic PMOs, whereby the former describes PMOs involved with projects in execution, and the latter PMOs setting strategies and developing organization-wide standards for project management (Kendall & Rollins, 2003). However, research has not supported this clear-cut distinction in organizational reality (Aubry et al., 2011). Instead, the wide variety of different PMO implementations with a similar variety of service mixes led academics to more complex categorizations, such as by types of projects and their impact on organizational context, structural characteristics, functions, and performance (Aubry & Brunet, 2016), or by the number of project managers and number of projects under the authority of PMOs (Hobbs & Aubry, 2008). The latter study developed a typology of three PMO types and their organizational context: “PMOs with many projects and project managers and considerable decision-making authority; PMOs with few projects and few, if any, project managers and less decision-making authority; and finally, PMOs with few if any project managers, a mandate including most of the organization’s projects, and a moderate level of decision-making authority” (p. S81). The study concludes that “PMOs are very much influenced by the organizational dynamics in which they are embedded” (p. S81).

However, none of these research-based categorizations has addressed the particular PMOs and their services in related OPM landscapes. This is done in the present study through a parsimonious categorization by PMO services scope and their frequency of delivery.

Modeling PMO Types

This section describes a PMO service delivery model’s two dimensions (scope and frequency), which gives rise to nine PMO types. The first dimension addresses the scope of service delivery. Earlier research identified 10 popular services listed in the Appendix under OPMO. These services range from governance-related to management and specialized services (Aubry et al., 2010). The Hobbs and Aubry model (2008) described previously identified different levels of service delivery, from limited services to the full range of services possible to be delivered. We extend this model by taking into account that no services might be provided to projects and project managers (as described in Müller et al. [2016a]). This is done on the vertical axis in the model in Table 1, which captures the scope of services delivered from none to low and high, with the latter two relative to the mean of all service deliveries. Low typically encompasses rudimentary services like competence development and performance monitoring, while high typically adds advanced services such as coordination between projects and stakeholders or human resources management of project managers.

Table 1.

PMO Types

High scope of service provision	3	6	9
Low scope of service provision	2	5	8
No service provision	1	4	7
	Never	Low	High
	Frequency of PMO service delivery involvement

The second dimension addresses the frequency of PMO (or other OPMO service delivery entities’) involvement. We extend the Hobbs and Aubry (2007) model, which looked into the number of projects PMOs are involved in, by considering the findings from Artto et al. (2011) that PMO-related services may also be provided through the functional organization independent of the existence of a PMO. Hence, a categorization model for PMO services must control for possible OPMO service delivery through entities other than PMOs. This is done on the horizontal axis in Table 1, which ranges from Never PMO involvement, via low, to high involvement. As before, the latter two categories relate to the mean of all PMO involvements. Here Never captures organizations with no PMO involvement in service delivery. This includes organizations without PMOs and related services (PMO Type 1 in Table 1) and organizations with OPMO service delivery through other functional entities than PMOs (PMO types 2 and 3 in Table 1). Examples of service delivery through non-PMO entities are described in Müller et al. (2016a) and the respective landscape descriptions in the discussion section.

Two further novice categories of PMOs are types 4 and 7, where no services are provided to the projects or project managers. Instead, service-related items (e.g., templates, checklists, or tools) are posted on intranet sites for project managers to use without the engagement of PMOs or other entities as part of a service delivery. This is described, for example, in cases of outsourced PMOs (Karkukly, 2010) and is further elaborated in the related landscape sections in the discussion section.

Some organizations involve their PMOs in a limited number of projects, such as the most important or troubled projects, in order to perform monitoring, consulting, or auditing services, whereas other organizations see it as mandatory to Always engage PMOs in their projects as part of their quality assurance policy. Examples of both low and high involvement categories are in Aubry et al.’s (2012) studies on large organizations with global PMO networks. PMO types 5, 6, 8, and 9 represent the traditional view of PMOs as service providers, with either a limited or a full set of services delivered to either a smaller number or all projects in an organization, as described in (Aubry et al., 2010). Independence of the scope and frequency dimensions is maintained through the non-PMO entities as possible service providers and the non-service provision of some organizations, which allows for all combinations shown in Table 1 and is empirically supported through the findings elaborated in the discussion section.

Organizational Design Theory as the Theoretical Lens

The theoretical lens taken for this study is organizational design theory, which addresses the ongoing deliberate orchestration of resources to accomplish organizational objectives (Greenwood & Miller, 2010) by deciding on (1) the division of the organization in subunits and assigning them specific tasks, and (2) the coordination and integration of activities through processes and systems that provide for the accomplishment of organizational tasks (Artto et al., 2011). This theoretical lens has long been of interest to project management scholars. For example, in studying organizational transitions from process to project orientation, such as by Midler (1995) in the automobile designer and manufacturer, Renault, or by Li (2017) at Tasly Pharmaceuticals in China. Other scholars addressed organizational design options contingent on, for example, the size of organizations’ projects and their number of customers (Turner & Keegan, 2001), the design-specifics of project-based organizations (Turner & Miterev, 2019), or the role of governmentality as the bridge between organizational design and governance (Simard et al., 2018). The lens also reaches into PMO studies, such as Aubry and Brunet’s (2016) categorization of PMO types in the public sector or the role of PMOs in megaprojects (Artto et al., 2011).

The just-mentioned studies take a contingency perspective, whereby the design is strongly influenced by the organizational context, leading to context-contingent levels of differentiation, formal integration, and structures (Greenwood & Miller, 2010). These context contingencies are somewhat questioned by studies that identified levels of isomorphism (i.e., copying other organizations’ designs) (Miterev et al., 2017) and equifinality in results (i.e., different organizational designs achieve similar outcomes) (Aubry et al., 2022). The contingency perspective dominates the organizational design literature (ibid.) and is also used in the present study as a theoretical lens to understand the link between organizational landscapes and their specific PMO types.

Methodology

Research Design

We followed Saunders et al.’s (2016) six-step research design process. This asks for the determination of the philosophical stance in Step 1. By taking Bhaskar’s (2016) critical realism as the onto-epistemological stance, we assumed a mind-independent, three-layered reality of objective mechanisms and structures giving rise to events in which the investigated phenomenon happens, which gives rise to the respondents’ subjective experiences. Combining objective and subjective realities (aka, tall ontologies) contributes to ontological robustness (Seidl & Whittington, 2014). In Step 2, we emphasized robustness again by choosing a deductive approach to theory building. Step 3 calls for the research strategy, whereby a global online survey was the apparent choice for collecting data on a large number of variables for a global sample (i.e., Step 4 decision). Step 5 asks for the time dimension, whereby we decided on a snapshot in time across sectors and geographies to identify the most generic patterns in the results, thus doing a cross-sectional study. Step 6 flows naturally from the prior choices as data collection through an online questionnaire for subsequent quantitative validation and pattern finding.

Data Collection

The OPM elements were operationalized using existing measurement constructs where possible, otherwise developed from existing literature. The leftmost column in Table 2 shows the questions. The Appendix lists the model’s layers, elements, and their definitions; sources from which the measures were taken or developed; the number of questionnaire items; and their scales. Five-point Likert and semantic differential scales were used for most constructs. The questions at the organizational philosophy layer identified the organization's preferred market presence as predominantly project-based, project-oriented, or process-oriented. Questions at the OPM approach and OPM governance layer used existing published constructs to identify organizations implementing their multiproject strategy and its governance. Questions for the business integration layer were developed from existing literature on portfolio management and benefits management and asked for the existence of related strategies, processes, and their acceptance by the organization’s managers. Organizational integration questions asked for the frequency of using projects, programs, or megaprojects to implement multiproject strategies. Questions at the project governance layer addressed the variety of governance institutions, such as steering committees, sponsors, PMOs, and others, as well as the presence and acceptance of project management–related policies, the types of contracts, and methodologies mostly used in the organizations’ projects. Questions on project management assessed the extent to which standard project management practices are used such as planning, scheduling, control, follow-up, and so forth. This included a question on the leadership style of the project manager. Demographics were collected on country, sector, organization size, project type, project size, and role of the respondent.

Table 2.

Factors and Their Loadings

OPM Element	Philo-sophy	OPMO	Projectifi-cation	Model	Governmentality		Governance of Project Management	Portfolio Management		Benefits Realization	Project Governance Institutions	Project Governance Policies	Project Mana-gement
Factor/variable name	Philosophy	OPMO	Projectifi-cation	Model	Direct govern-mentality	Neoliberal govern-mentality	Governance of project management	Strategy and management	Optimi-zation	Benefits realization	Project governance institutions	Project governance policies	Project management
Variance explained	75%	52%	68%	69%	28%	27%	55%	47%	19%	85%	59%	84%	67%
KMO	0.718	0.855	0.803	0.5	0.527		0.913	0.879		0.736	0.757	0.83	0.781
Cronbach alpha	0.829	0.865	0.841	0.554	0.735	0.57	0.912	0.878	0.643	0.908	0.825	0.938	0.818
Production through repetitive production versus unique projects	0.882
Deliverables are part of production versus individual projects	0.856
Deliverables are standard products versus bespoke projects	0.853
PMO service: Competence development		0.799
PMO service: Coordination of projects and resources		0.740
PMO service: Performance monitoring and control		0.732
PMO service: Execute specialized tasks		0.724
PMO service: Develop and implement methodologies		0.716
PMO service: Coordinate interfaces between project and stakeholders		0.709
PMO service: Human resource management of project managers		0.668
PMO service: Managing organizational learning		0.659
Working-in-projects is a business principle			0.851
Project mindset pervades the organization			0.848
Importance of project management for achieving objectives			0.846
Career system for project managers			0.750
Governance follows principles versus rules				0.832
Governace is not formalized versus follows standard routines				0.832
Governors communicate values					0.739	0.202
Governors flexibly adjust organization structures					0.726	0.002
Governors expect project managers to decide by themselves					0.664	-0.018
Governors control achievement of objectives					0.333	-0.321
Governors enforce their decisions					0.015	0.867
Governors give clear directions					0.164	0.858
Organization provides basic project management training							0.843
Organization provides advanced project management training							0.825
Organization uses project management methdologies							0.813
Organization uses a project management maturity model							0.781
Organization uses support intsitions (such as PMOs)							0.776
Organization provides mentoring programs							0.773
Organization aims for project management certification							0.754
Organization uses steering groups							0.700
Organization benchmarks project management capabilities							0.640
Organization audits troubled projects							0.563
Projects are selected based on the organization’s strategy								0.813	0.091
Projects are aligned with the organizational strategy								0.808	0.142
Projects in the portfolio are prioritized								0.781	0.193
A dedicated process is used to manage project portfolios								0.745	0.260
Individual group manages the portfolio								0.731	0.065
Portfolio is optimized through strategic alignment								0.696	0.287
Management devises a portfolio strategy								0.629	0.260
Portfolio is optimized through balancing								0.006	0.834
Portfolio is optimized through value maximization								0.232	0.706
Portfolio is optimized through other means								0.307	0.670
Organization follows up on the achievement of project benefits										0.941
Organization executes benefits management processes regularly										0.927
Organization feeds back assessment results to portfolio management										0.893
Steering group members are formally appointed											0.884
Project governance is done by steering groups											0.856
PMO members are known to the project manager											0.744
Governance formally appoints project managers											0.740
Project governance uses additional governance institutions											0.594
Organizational policies for project management are available												0.948
Organizational policies for project management exist												0.923
Project managers are trained in organizational policies for project management												0.912
Project managers follow organizational policies for project management												0.891
Measures are taken to counteract plan deviations													0.880
The progress of the project is controlled													0.864
Planning and scheduling is part of project management													0.781
The project is formally closed down													0.729

Frequency of service delivery was assessed through a question on the involvement of PMOs in governing projects, measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Never to Always. Answers indicating Never were classified as non-PMO organizations. Those indicating Rarely and Occasionally as Low, and those indicating Frequently or Always were categorized as High in frequency of involvement. The scope of service delivery was assessed through 10 questions on the delivery of PMO services as identified by (Aubry et al., 2010) (for measures and scales, see the Appendix), which were factored in the OPMO factor. Approvals for ethics and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were obtained from the Norsk Senter för Forskningsdata (NSD) in Norway. Convenience sampling was pursued using two main sources:

Organizations that contacted us for consulting in OPM. Here, the questionnaire was used to identify the particular OPM implementation profile of the organization. These contributions came from organizations in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands.

Managers in Executive MBA (E-MBA) programs at a business school in the Netherlands, a university in China, and one in Iceland. Here, the questionnaire was used as part of a group assignment of a module on OPM, where students were asked to identify the particular OPM implementation profile of an organization represented in the group of students.

The questionnaire was not sent out to organizations for them to return; instead, it was used purposely on identified organizations. Hence, there is no base to calculate a traditional response rate (as it will be 100%). The mix of students and their home organizations provides for a level of randomness in the assessed institutions. The risk of obtaining several answers about the same organization is balanced by the low likelihood that two student groups will work in the same organization and on the same project.

A pilot test with 12 respondents led to a minor rephrasing of some questions. Pilot responses were excluded from the final sample. Data collection took place from February 2020 to March 2023, typically twice a year, when assignments were due by the universities. Of the 277 responses obtained, two were excluded because of nonconsent, four because they did not provide data, and six because of double entries, leaving a final sample of 265 usable responses.

Demographics

Ninety of 265 responses came from China (34%), followed by Canada with 43 responses (16%), Iceland with 32 (12%), the Baltics with 31 (12%), the Netherlands with 25 (9%), and the rest from other countries. Sectors represented were mainly industry with 108 responses (41%), healthcare with 42 (16%), consumer goods and services with 21 (8%), and the rest were other sectors. The size of the organizations the respondents came from was relatively balanced, with 64 responses (24%) from organizations with more than 5,000 employees, 60 (23%) from organizations between 251 and 1,000 employees, 29 (11%) with up to 50 employees, and 56 (21%) from both organizations with between 51 and 250 employees and between 1,001 and 5,000 employees.

The roles of the respondents were in 95 cases (36%) line managers of different functional units, followed by 66 (25%) who were project managers/directors; 54 (20%) were functional specialists or consultants; 29 (11%) were company directors (CEO or CFOs); 13 (5%) were business- and administration-related roles; and 6 (2%) were others. The project types they represented were mainly engineering and construction with 173 (65%), followed by 36 (14%) who were information technology and telecom, 31 (12%) were business and organizational change, 5 (2%) were education and science, and 16 (6%) were other project types. The project sizes in terms of project costs were in 100 cases (38%) between €100,001 and €1 million, followed by 59 cases (22%) with less than €100,000, 27 (14%) projects between €1 and €5 million, 31 (12%) projects between €5 million and €50 million, and 28 (11%) more than €50 million. Within-group deviations from the sample size of 265 are due to missing data.

The particular demographic mix is influenced by the Chinese E-MBA program providing most of the answers, followed by Canadian firms seeking consulting. This is followed by answers from the international E-MBA programs in Iceland and the Netherlands.

Data Analysis and Results

The initial descriptive analysis was followed by factor analyses, using principle component analysis and varimax rotation to validate the measurement constructs of the OPM elements (see Tables 1 through 3). This allowed us to keep the logic of the theoretical model with its particular mix of elements while ensuring their proper measurement. Possible threats stemming from common methods bias were addressed by including ex ante reminders about anonymity, that there are no right or wrong answers, and answers should be related to the last finished project (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). An ex post Haman test identified 26 factors, of which the first accounted for 25% of the variance. This is far below the threshold of 50% variance (ditto). Common methods bias was, therefore, assumed not to be an issue.

Validity was pursued by using existing constructs or developing them from established concepts where possible. Validity tests included item-to-item thresholds of 0.3 and item-to-total thresholds of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Reliability was tested using Cronbach alpha thresholds of 0.6 (Cronbach, 1951). Throughout the analyses, significance thresholds were established at the usual 0.05. Analysis was done using IBM’s statistical software platform SPSS (version 29).

Descriptive Statistics

Missing data of 5% was well under the 15% threshold, and therefore not an issue. Normality of the data was indicated through skewness being within ±2 and kurtosis with the ±3 limits (Hair et al., 2003).

Model Validation

Factor analysis with Varimax rotation was used to validate the measurement constructs for the OPM elements and to reduce the 106 questionnaire items to the number of OPM elements in the model. Table 2 shows the factors and their loadings after the elimination of unsupportive questionnaire items, along with their name, variance explained, KMO, and Cronbach alpha. All factors were significant at 0.05 and within the ranges of item-to-item and item-to-total measures mentioned previously. Governmentality and portfolio management are loaded on two factors each. Hence their combined variance explained reached the threshold of 50%. VIF values under 3 (with a threshold of 5) indicated no issues with multicollinearity.

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the factors. As in all factor analyses, data are normalized to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Skewness and kurtosis indicate the normal distribution of the data. Descriptive statistics of the factors are provided because of their relevance as a replacement for the original variables in all further analyses.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Factors

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Skewness		Kurtosis
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Philosophy	262	-1.83	1.29	-0.32	0.15	-1.18	0.30
OPMO tasks	231	-2.77	1.97	-0.20	0.16	-0.46	0.32
Projectification	255	-2.51	1.89	-0.44	0.15	-0.35	0.30
Governance model	263	-2.06	1.75	-0.02	0.15	-0.59	0.30
Direct governmentality	257	-2.77	2.49	-0.10	0.15	0.02	0.30
Neoliberal governmentality	257	-2.61	2.33	-0.14	0.15	-0.39	0.30
Governance of project management	259	-1.92	2.20	0.13	0.15	-0.80	0.30
Portfolio strategy and management	248	-3.77	2.08	-0.82	0.15	0.92	0.31
Portfolio optimization	248	-2.68	2.46	-0.02	0.15	-0.14	0.31
Benefits realization	259	-2.14	1.87	-0.19	0.15	-0.74	0.30
Project governance institutions	257	-2.28	1.58	-0.35	0.15	-0.70	0.30
Policies	259	-2.26	1.47	-0.62	0.15	-0.24	0.30
Project management	257	-3.57	1.33	-0.70	0.15	0.69	0.30
Overall performance	260	1.00	5.00	-0.50	0.15	0.79	0.30

Table 3 shows the highest homogeneity in answers to the philosophy questions (range 3.12), followed by questions on policies (3.73), governance models (3.81), and governance institutions (3.86). This indicates fewer variances in organizational practices than in the other measurement variables. The largest variance is in the answers to the portfolio strategy and management questions (5.85), followed by direct governmentality (5.26) and portfolio optimization questions (5.14). Indicating a wide span from relatively immature to very mature practices. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of the categorical variables.

Table 4.

Descriptive Analysis of Ordinal Variables

	N
	Valid	Missing	Mode	Minimum	Maximum
Multiproject strategy	255	10	4	1	4
Paradigm category	244	21	1	1	4
Organizational integration by projects	262	3	4	1	5
Organizational integration by programs	262	3	4	1	5
Organizational integration by megaprojects	258	7	1	1	5
Contract complexity	255	10	7	0	7
Preferred methodology	263	2	3	1	5
Leadership style	243	22	5	1	5
PMO_ grid	265	0	9	1	9

Table 4 shows the overall preferences across all organizations for a hybrid approach (i.e., applying program- and portfolio-related criteria for project selection) as a multiproject strategy. Projects and programs are the preferred way for organizational integration (OI) of the work into the production process, governed by a conformist paradigm. Situation-dependent contract strategies, waterfall methodologies, and empowering leadership styles are also indicated as the most popular. Finally, there is a preference for Landscape 9 (high service provision combined with frequent involvement of PMOs).

The Frequency variable in the PMO type model showed a minimum of 1, maximum of 5, mean of 3.18, standard deviation of 1.402, skewness of −0.237, and kurtosis of 1.212. As described in the methodology section, the variable was transformed into a categorical one with Never (i.e., No PMO) occurring in 47 answers (18%), Low frequency in 93 answers (35%), and High frequency in 123 answers (47%). The individual frequencies for each of the nine landscape types are in the top row of Table 5.

Table 5.

Mode of Elements by PMO Type

PMO Type	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Overall
Demographics
n	21(8%)	19 (7%)	9 (3%)	7 (3%)	59 (22%)	27 (10%)	6 (2%)	38 (14%)	79 (30%)	265
Employees	3	1	3	1, 3, 4	4	5	5	4	5	5
Sector	6	6, 12	6	6	6	6	6, 13	6	6	6
Project type	1	1	1	1, 3	1	1	1	1	1	1
Project costs	1	1	1	1, 2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Country	2	2	5	7	4	4	5	3	4	4
OPM element
Multiproject strategy	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Paradigm category	4	2	1, 4	1, 2, 4	4	1	4	2	1	1
Organizational integration by projects	5	4	4	4	4	5	4	4	5	4
Organizational integration by programs	2	3	4	2	3	4	4	1, 3, 4	4	4
Organizational integration by megaprojects	1	1	1	1	1	1	1, 2	1	1	1
Contract complexity	7	7	5	7	7	4	4	7	7	7
Preferred methodology	2	1	2	3, 5	3	5	4	3	3	3
Leadership style	5	5	2	5	2	5	5	5	5	5

Identification of Landscapes

For elements measured through categorical variables, the mode was used to identify the most popular implementation by PMO type. Table 5 shows the variance across PMO types and the related demographic profiles, especially in paradigms, preferred methodologies, and contract complexity.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis on the differences in OPM elements by PMO type showed the superiority of PMO Type 9 with high service levels and frequent involvement. Type 9 PMOs score significantly higher in almost all OPM elements, especially against PMO types 1, 2, and 5. See Table 6.

Table 6.

Mean Values of OPM Elements by PMO Type and Significance of Differences

OPM Element/Landscape Type		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	ANOVA between group sig.
a	Philosophy	0.155	-0.073	-0.031	-0.076	-0.057	-0.017	-0.258	0.163	-0.026	0.974
b	PMO services		-1.144	0.644		-0.876	0.669		-0.540	0.888	<0.001
c	Projectification	-0.088	-0.878	-0.291	-0.117	-0.573	0.502	0.649	-0.231	0.594	<0.001
d	Governance model	-0.456	-1.040	-0.067	-0.643	-0.254	0.263	0.230	0.077	0.477	<0.001
e	Direct governmentality	0.125	0.006	0.425	0.624	-0.095	0.021	0.863	-0.498	0.097	0.012
f	Neoliberal governmentality	-0.581	-0.691	0.197	-0.587	-0.117	0.099	-0.163	-0.166	0.491	<0.001
g	Governance of project management	-0.820	-1.288	-0.955	-0.814	-0.447	0.272	0.438	-0.019	0.932	<0.001
h	Portfolio strategy and management	-0.019	-0.637	-0.074	-0.033	-0.353	0.021	0.683	-0.232	0.492	<0.001
i	Portfolio optimization	-0.526	-0.753	-0.312	-0.530	-0.079	0.195	0.782	-0.117	0.380	<0.001
j	Benefits realization	-0.544	-0.764	-0.207	-0.943	-0.294	0.413	0.332	-0.291	0.613	<0.001
k	Project governance institutionalization	-0.961	-1.126	-1.212	-0.785	-0.336	-0.017	0.931	0.209	0.844	<0.001
l	Policies	-0.589	-1.461	-0.677	-0.860	-0.383	0.166	0.582	0.203	0.742	<0.001
m	Project management	-0.280	-0.577	-0.387	-0.986	-0.440	0.203	0.372	0.000	0.573	<0.001
n	Overall performance	3.446	3.402	3.607	3.129	3.303	3.489	3.430	3.381	3.796	0.002

	Scheffe test for significant differences between landscapes by OPM element
	Landscape Type
	1						g, k	k	g,	f, g, j, k, l
	2					k, l	c, g, j, k, l	g, k, l	c, g, k, l	c, d, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m
	3						g, k	k	k	d, k, l
	4									g, j, k, l, m
	5						c, g			c, d, g, h, j, l, m, n
	6									g
	7
	8									g, k, c

Table 6 shows significantly different expressions of OPM landscapes by PMO types. The negative mean values of PMO types 1 through 5 and 8 indicate under-average expression of OPM elements. The mainly positive mean values of PMO types 6, 7, and 9 landscapes indicate above-average implementation of elements. The lower half of Table 6 shows the significant differences between the landscapes regarding the expression of individual OPM elements. This part of Table 6 should be read as follows: For example, PMO Type 9 landscape on the horizontal row scores significantly higher than PMO Type 1 landscape (in the vertical column for landscape types) in the OPM elements neoliberal governmentality (f), governance of project management (g), benefits realization (j), project governance institutions (k), and policies (l). The different landscape profiles and their differences are further elaborated on in the discussion section.

Figure 2 depicts the particular OPM landscape profiles for the six most popular landscape types, visualizing the different element implementation profiles and the strengths of their implementation (with the vertical line indicating the average of all implementations across all landscapes). While landscapes for PMO types 9 and 6 are predominantly on the right side of the figure, with strong expression of the related OPM elements, most other landscapes tend to be on the left-hand side, with the weaker or non-existent implementation of OPM elements.

Figure 2.

Profiles of OPM landscapes.

The OPM element PMO services represents the scope dimension of the PMO types model developed in the preceding; hence, it is redundant in Figure 2. However, we retained it to keep the OPM model’s integrity in its visualization.

Discussion

This is the first study to identify the particular OPM landscapes associated with different PMO types in organizations. The results provide several new insights, such as the popularity of different OPM landscapes, the profiles of the different OPM landscapes, and the significance of differences between landscapes.

OPM Landscape Popularity and Profiles

Landscape 9, the most popular OPM implementation with 30% of all responses, provides the context for PMOs with the highest levels of service provision and frequency of involvement in project delivery. This landscape is typically found in the largest organizations in the industry sector, executing engineering and construction projects between €100,000 and €1 million in cost. Figure 2 shows highly expressed OPM element implementations, indicating substantial investment and maturity in projects and project management–related tasks, skills, processes, and technologies. High levels of projectification and provisions of PMO services indicate that projects are business strategic. For that, a framework of formal and informal measures for project delivery provides a rule-based governance model that enforces established processes, supported by a conformist paradigm (shareholder orientation with behavior control) for project execution. This synchronizes with various governance institutions and many policies at the project level. Project management as a service is strongly supported through organizational means. Mature practices, as outlined in related practice standards, are most often applied in waterfall-type projects, with project managers using empowering leadership styles. Informal measures include the highest levels of neoliberalism in governmentality to guide individuals in their self-governance toward project execution. This sums up Landscape 9 as the most advanced OPM implementation among the assessed organizations, combined with strict execution enforcement.

This landscape provides for the largest possible service provision and involvement of PMOs. From an organizational design perspective, this landscape provides maximum organizational support for projects through PMOs, using traditional project management methods with strict governance of project management in large industrial settings. Studies by Aubry et al. (2012) support these findings, for example, by describing a global network of approximately 250 PMOs in a large telecom company with the highest levels of organizational support for the best possible selection of the right projects, their throughput through the organization and successful delivery to customers.

Landscape 8, the third most popular OPM implementation (14%), is associated with lower service levels but frequent involvement of PMOs in project delivery. This landscape is typical for organizations with 1,000 to 5,000 employees, typically in North America, but otherwise similar in the sector, project type, and costs to Landscape 9. However, Figure 2 shows a substantially different landscape profile. Overall, the Landscape 8 profile approximates the average of all profiles (as indicated by the vertical straight line), with slightly below-average implementation of the strategic OPM layers such as OPM approach, OPM governance, and business integration. The preference for the flexible economist governance paradigm indicates a shareholder orientation and outcome control in governance, which provides project managers with more freedom in their decision-making than those in Landscape 9. The above-average implementation of tactical OPM layers, such as the number of project governance institutions and policies, partly compensates for the underrepresentation of strategic layers.

From an organizational design perspective, these organizations emphasize project-level governance and deemphasize strategic project management at a medium level of projectification. Aubry et al. (2012) describe such a landscape in their study of healthcare organizations in North America. In this case, strategic PMO services focused on monitoring and consolidating project status information. These PMOs were empowered to develop their management frameworks regarding methodologies, processes, and tools, which served strict control and monitoring of the individual projects.

Landscape 7, a less popular OPM implementation with only 2% of the reported cases, is associated with frequently involved PMOs without a clear set of services. Because of its low popularity and reasons for clarity, this profile was omitted in Figure 2. This OPM landscape is found mainly in larger organizations in the industry and scientific sectors, executing engineering and construction projects between €100,000 and €1 million in cost. Organizations applying a Landscape 7 profile score highest in projectification and apply a rule-based governance model, with very strong direct governmentality, mature governance, organizational support of project management, and well-developed portfolio management and optimization capabilities. The tactical orientation in OPM is indicated through the highest score of all landscapes in the number of project governance institutions.

Preference for the versatile artist governance paradigm (stakeholder orientation with outcome control) provides project managers with the largest possible freedom in decision-making. From an organizational design perspective, PMOs do not provide services to projects but are indirectly involved by providing tools or other support materials on the organization’s website. Examples include a synchrotron research facility in North America, where one of the authors interviewed employees, directors, administrative, and operational personnel as part of an OPM consulting engagement. The organization provides light-beaming capabilities and timeslots for their customers, which typically require adapting the facilities to the customer’s needs so each customer’s research is treated as a project in the organization. Projects are selected and scheduled by operations management, so OPMO services are not used. The PMO develops tools, such as criteria lists for project selection, and hands it over to upper management. Hence, it does not deliver services to the individual project but administers each.

Landscape 6 was found in 10% of all cases. It provides the context for PMOs with high service levels but rare involvement. The typical landscape profile is large organizations (>5,000 employees), predominantly in the healthcare sector, doing engineering and construction projects of a value between €100,000 and €1 million. Figure 2 shows a strong expression of strategic OPM layers such as OPM approach, OPM governance, and business integration (i.e., toward the right side). High levels of OPM tasks, projectification, and rules-based governance, together with highly developed governance of project management, indicate a well-developed project management support system enforced through a conformist paradigm (shareholder orientation with behavior control) within a rule-based governance model. The tactical setup is slightly below average in the number of project governance institutions and policies steering the well-executed project management best practices, mainly using fixed-price contracts and agile approaches. From an organizational design perspective, this landscape provides a highly developed OPM infrastructure for project managers to use but involves PMOs only on an as-needed basis. An example of this landscape is described in Li (2017) studying Tasly Pharmaceuticals in China. This organization established a PMO to transform the company from a process-based to a project-based organization by establishing a comprehensive OPM infrastructure and changing employees’ mindsets. Within this landscape, the PMO provides the methodology, processes, tools, and training for project managers to execute their projects with little involvement from the outside. Hence, PMOs are only involved when needed such as when project-level issues are escalated to them.

Landscape 5 was found in 22% of all cases. It is the context for rudimentary PMO services provided at below-average frequency. Demographically, this landscape is similar to Landscape 6 regarding typical sector, project type, size, and country. The exception is the organization’s size, which is most often between 1,000 and 5,000 employees. OPM implementation profiles differ significantly despite demographic similarities. Landscape 5 scores below average in OPMO services, projectification, governance of project management, project governance institutions, and policies. Preference for a versatile artist paradigm indicates that project managers are given the highest possible freedom in decision-making. Hence, from an organizational design perspective, this landscape trusts senior project managers and their experiences for the best possible project execution and provides only rudimentary support through the OPM system. An example of a Landscape 5 setting is given by Tsaturyan and Müller (2015), who describe a network of four PMOs in a large financial institution. The PMOs perform portfolio management and optimization tasks at different stages of the decision-making processes at the bank. Two of the PMOs report to the executive board to develop portfolio- and organization-wide strategies, and the other two report to operations management and support the largest IT and most strategic projects of the operations and technology department. Hence, PMOs are only involved in a fraction of the organization’s projects.

Landscape 4 occurred in only 3% of the reported cases and provided the context for settings with no defined set of PMO services and only occasional involvement in projects. Due to the low level of popularity, and to maintain clarity, this profile is omitted in Figure 2. The demographic data show a preference for industry sector projects. However, they are indifferent in terms of averages, for example, in company sizes (from 50 to 5,000), project types (engineering, construction, business, and organizational change), and project costs (up to €1 million). A similar indifference is in using governance paradigms and approaches (both waterfall and agile). The governance model is strongly principles-based and supported by strong direct governmentality. The profile indicates a slightly below-average level of projectification and portfolio management capabilities. Several elements score strongly below average, including portfolio optimization, benefits realization, project governance institutions, policies, and project management practices. From an organizational design perspective, this OPM implementation relates to PMOs with limited involvement in projects and services not defined in the OPMO list. This indicates that services are perhaps not asked for by projects, as described in the bagel metaphor by Aubry et al. (2012), where project managers omit contact with overly controlling PMOs. Alternatively, the PMO may provide services other than those indicated in the OPMO list or has just been set up as a new organizational entity and is defining its services portfolio (Englund & Müller, 2004).

Landscape 3 also occurred only in 3% of the cases. It provides the context for a high level of OPMO services without PMO involvement in ongoing projects. The profile is omitted in Figure 2. The landscape indicates organizations of 50 to 250 employees working on small engineering and construction projects in the industry sector. Varying governance paradigms, alliance contracts, self-developed methodologies, and directive leadership styles characterize the landscape. The measured profile shows a highly above-average expression of PMO services, direct governmentality, and slightly above-average neoliberal governmentality. Slightly below average are projectification and strongly below average project governance institutions, policies, governance of project management, project management practices, and portfolio optimization. From an organizational design perspective, this landscape fosters OPMO service delivery through entities other than PMOs, potentially through the functional organization. This is supported by Artto et al. (2011), who describe organizations that provide PMO-like services through the functional organization without establishing a formal PMO.

Landscape 2 is another rarely used profile, only used in 7% of the cases. It provides the context for a few OPMO services delivered through entities other than PMOs. Demographics include the smallest companies (<50 employees) in the industry or public sector, doing small engineering and construction projects (< €100,000 in cost). These projects are executed under a flexible economist paradigm (shareholder orientation and outcome control) with no preferred methodology. Figure 2 shows the OPM landscape profile. The profile curves at the extreme left show little or no concern for strategic layers such as OPM approach and OPM governance. Business and organizational integration scores lowest of all assessed profiles, just as project governance and project management practices. Some governance institutions are in place, presumably steering committees. This landscape indicates organizations with almost no projects and no efforts to establish an OPM infrastructure for projects. From an organizational design perspective, these organizations do not invest in project management and pursue their business goals through means other than projects, potentially just controlling the occasional project through a steering committee. An example of this landscape and PMO type is a medium-sized IT company in northern Europe, where one of the authors provided consultancy. There, the quality department developed a rudimentary methodology and put it on their website for project managers to use. The department was never asked to get involved with projects, and only a few of the project managers knew of the existence of the website and its content. Other examples include organizations with strong control functions, subject to the bagel metaphor just described and in Aubry et al. (2012).

Landscape 1 is found in 8% of the cases. It describes an OPM context fostering no PMO services and no PMO involvement in projects. The demographics are similar to Landscape 2 projects, except the preference for slightly larger organizations with 250 to 1,000 employees. Despite these similarities, there are strong differences in profiles between Landscapes 1 and 2. Projects in the former are mainly executed under a versatile artist paradigm (stakeholder orientation and outcome control), which indicates higher seniority of project managers and trust in them to balance the wide variety of stakeholder requirements themselves, using self-developed methodologies. Figure 2 shows that projectification is higher than in most other landscapes, indicating a profound experience with project-based work. Governance of project management is supported to some extent. Business integration elements, such as portfolio management/optimization, benefits management, and portfolio management, exist, albeit below average. Project governance institutions are not used, but policies exist. The organizational design perspective indicates firms with a substantial number of projects, executed by senior project managers. By providing only rudimentary levels of OPM infrastructure, these organizations avoid bothering project managers with policies, governance institutions, and methodologies. This is supported by Müller et al. (2016), who describe an organization of the size just indicated developing IT solutions. The company hired a senior project manager from a large telecom company to establish project management. The project manager, therefore, hired a few junior project managers, with whom he jointly developed a methodology and policies for project execution. No PMO was established, as the project managers developed routines and exchanged practices informally during daily work.

Differences Between Landscapes and Their Significance

As indicated in the lower half of Table 6, landscape implementation profiles differ significantly. Landscape 9 scores significantly higher than almost all other landscapes in most OPM element implementations. It also shows that Landscapes 5 through 8, as a group, differ significantly from the group of Landscapes 1 through 3. This indicates three groups of landscapes (i.e., regions), as shown in Table 7.

Table 7.

PMO Types by Region

	Region 1Valley scenery	Region 2Hilly scenery	Region 3Mountainous scenery
High scope of Service provision	3	6	9
Low scope of Service provision	2	5	8
No Service provision	1	4	7
	Never	Low	High
	Frequency of PMO service delivery involvement

Region 1, a valley scenery in terms of OPM element expression and PMO engagement, comprises Landscapes 1 through 4, which show the lowest implementation strength. These landscapes limit PMO services and/or involvement in projects. Little is invested in project governance, OPM governance, and OPM approaches. Their projectification varies substantially from low to medium, indicating variance in how much they invest in building OPM capabilities. Being unclear in the preferred governance paradigm, they trust their project managers to be self-sufficient in an organizational context not strategically designed for project delivery.

Region 2, a hilly scenery, with Landscapes 5 through 8, approximates the average implementation. This region is significantly stronger than Region 1 in governance of project management, project governance institutions, and policies. Hence, a stronger focus on project management as a service in need of governance prevails, including organizational measures, supporting entities, processes, and tools. These organizations pursue projects to a large extent and trust predominantly in the strategic and tactical use of project management as a service.

Region 3, a mountainous scenery, shows Landscape 9 being significantly stronger in its OPM element implementation than other regions. The differences from Region 1 are significant for almost all OPM element implementations, both strategically and tactically. Differences from Region 2 are mainly in a stronger focus on projectification and governance of project management as a service and the use of governance institutions. Region 3 organizations trust in both the strategic importance of an organizational infrastructure that supports project delivery and the tactical importance of a well-governed and mature project management service.

Three regions, with low, medium, and high investment in OPM infrastructure, give rise to three different PMO service/involvement logics, underpinned by three different organizational design archetypes (ODA), in line with Englund and Müller (2004):

Regions with low investments in OPM (valleys) omit organizational support and have little PMO activity. Their ODA is to empower individual managers to make the right decisions and use the right tools and techniques to manage their projects.

Regions with medium levels of investment in OPM (hills) make limited use of PMOs, mainly to improve project management service delivery through deliberate service development and structural support through policies and governance institutions. Their ODA is improving tactical capabilities.

Regions with high investment in OPM (mountains) make the fullest use of PMOs and add strategic capabilities. Their ODA is the synchronization of all project-related activities throughout the organization.

Conclusion

This exploratory study investigated the particular OPM landscapes, giving rise to nine PMO types. Two hundred and sixty-five responses to a global survey were used to validate the OPM model measurements quantitatively. We can now answer the research question.

RQ: What are the particular OPM landscape profiles associated with different combinations of PMO service delivery scope and frequency?

The individual landscape profiles are described in the discussion section and depicted in Figure 2. These landscapes fall into three groups (called regions) of different underlying organizational design logics called ODA. The differences between regions in the strength of OPM elements implementation are significant.

From an organizational design perspective, the preceding shows that Region 1 (i.e., Landscapes 1 through 4) focuses on the project manager and their capabilities to maximize performance in a context unsupportive for project delivery. Region 2 (Landscapes 5 through 8) builds on project managers, well-developed project management services, and tactical infrastructure. Region 3 (Landscape 9) builds on project managers, well-developed project management services, and an organizational infrastructure supportive of the smooth throughput of projects through the organizational system. Along the continuum from Regions 1 through 3, emphasis is given initially to the project manager as a person, then the project management service is added, and finally, the organizational context. This is supported by the PMO migration steps outlined by Englund and Müller (2004), who suggest starting PMOs tactically with a senior project manager performing consulting and project recovery services. Over time, this should be complemented by mid-career project managers who institutionalize PMO services through common methodologies and by establishing training, certification, and career frameworks. In the third step, the long-term role of the PMO in the corporate strategy is defined, and the organizational Infrastructure for efficient throughput of projects is established.

This study is the first to describe the complexity of the interaction of OPMO service delivery entities and OPM design, taking into account the possibility of OPMO service delivery through the functional organization and the possibility of indirect service delivery through the provision of tools and methods through intranet websites, hence the noninvolvement of OPMO service deliverers. The study contributes to the OPM literature by showing the link between OPM designs and PMO designs. In doing so, our study bridges the OPM literature with PMO literature that has tended to grow in separate tracks. The literature on OPM has not systematically incorporated PMO elements until recently. Our theoretical contributions are in a taxonomy of nine microdesign choices (i.e., PMO types) and their associated OPM landscapes, clustered into three regions of varying investment in project management. Moreover, the study advances the body of work on organizational design, whose scholars have contributed greatly in recent years to understanding organizational phenomena associated with organizational design configurations for project-based organizations (Turner & Miterev, 2019). We extend this literature with insights into the identified organizational design archetypes of the individual regions and landscapes.

Practitioners are provided with a range of OPM design options and design archetypes. This provides them with the information needed to design appropriate levels of OPM implementation for their organization and investment capabilities. The migration path in OPM development from a tactical to a strategic asset, that is, from a focus on the project manager’s personal capabilities, then adding service professionalism, and finally, adding organizational capabilities, provides a framework for practitioners to develop their own OPM infrastructure adjusted to the strategic importance of projects for their business.

The study's limitations include the breadth of questions asked about the assessed organizations, which might not always be easy to answer from the myopic lens of the respondent. Sample-related limitations are in the dominance of Chinese organizations and engineering and construction projects. Both might have introduced traces of biases. Strengths include the relatively large sample size, proven methods and analysis techniques, and the strong theoretical base of the OPM model.

As for most exploratory studies, more research is indicated to validate and refine the study’s findings in different settings such as different geographies and industries. Qualitative studies on the alignment mechanism between PMO configurations and OPM landscapes could address questions about the mechanisms of mutual adjustment for performance maximization. More insights into the contextual contingencies of ODAs could reveal the criteria for investment decisions and processes in OPM designs. Studies addressing the relationships among OPM elements and associated patterns of interaction would reveal more profound insights into the systematic nature of OPM and its role as a production function within the organization.

The present study’s contribution to knowledge lies in a taxonomy of OPM design landscapes and their PMO configurations. It is another building block and incremental step in developing organization theory for projects and their management.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ralf Müller

Linzhuo Wang

Author Biographies

Ralf Müller is Professor of Project Management at BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Project Management Journal^® and a Fellow of both the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the Centre for Excellence in Project Management. He lectures and researches worldwide in leadership, governance, and organizational project management and has published more than 300 academic publications. His many awards include several lifetime achievement awards, and Stanford University ranks him as among the top 2% of the most influential scientists worldwide. Before joining academia, he spent 30 years in industry consulting with large enterprises and governments in more than 50 different countries for better project management and governance. He also held related line-management positions, including as the Worldwide Director of Project Management at NCR Corporation. He can be contacted at ralf.muller@bi.no

Linzhuo Wang is Associate Professor at BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway. He conducts research on project resilience, network governance, project governance and digital platforms, and leadership. His work has appeared in more than 25 academic publications and his research has been funded by the Project Management Institute and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. He has won multiple best-article awards at project management conferences. He can be reached at linzhuo.wang@bi.no

Appendix.

Element Definition, Assessment, and Measures

Layer	Element	Definition	Measure-Related Literature	Scale
Organizational Philosophy	Project based	Projects are the organization’s unit of production. This requires project-specific control systems.	Turner & Keegan, 2001	SD
	Project oriented	Management decided to run the business by projects, even though it could also be run in a process-oriented manner and is often internally organized by processes.	Gareis & Huemann, 2007
	Process oriented	Organizations with very few projects and organizational structures in functional lines in a permanent organization.	Gareis & Huemann, 2007
OPM Approach	Multiproject approach	The strategy for the project-based part of the organization: Multiproject strategy: The resources are neither necessarily shared nor are the objectives aligned across projects. Program strategy: Objectives are shared across projects, but resources may not be. Portfolio strategy: Resources are shared across projects, but the objectives of projects may be different. Hybrid strategy: Resources and objectives are shared across projects.	Blomquist & Müller, 2006, p. 89	MC
	OPMO	The organizational project management office provides project management relevant services to the organization. These include: Monitoring and control of project performance Development of project management competencies Development and implementation of standard project management methodologies Coordination of projects and resources Strategic work such as development of business strategies, new markets to target, or new skills Managing organizational learning across projects Execute specialized tasks, such as professional planning Coordinate the interface between projects and stakeholders such as between a buyer and a seller organization HR management of project managers, e.g., through recruiting, selecting, evaluating, developing of career systems, etc. Other tasks	Aubry et al., 2010	LSf
	Projectification	The extent an organization uses projects and their management as a principle in conducting their work.	Müller et al., 2016b, p. 961	Lsi
OPM Governance	Paradigm	A shared mental pattern about the way projects should be managed. Four paradigms exist: Conformist: Shareholder-oriented governance with behavior control of project managers’ work (e.g., process compliance) Flexible economist: Shareholder-oriented governance, with outcome control of project managers Versatile artist: Stakeholder-oriented governance with outcome control of project managers Agile pragmatist: Stakeholder-oriented governance with behavior control of project managers	Müller & Lecoeuvre, 2014, p. 961	SD
	Model	The preference for rule-based or principles-based governance in the organization Rule-based: Rules and processes are to be followed, otherwise penalties apply Principle-based: Higher level principles should be followed; deviations from existing rules and processes should be explained	Müller, 2009, pp. 23–28	SD
	Governmentality	The way people in governance positions present themselves to those they govern: Direct: Between governor and governed, authoritative (commanding) to liberal (incentivizing) Neoliberal: Setting the context to influence governed peoples’ self-management	Müller et al., 2017b, p. 391	LSa
	Governance of project management	Governance of project management as a service within the organization	Müller, 2009, pp.31–40	LSf
Business Integration	Portfolio strategy	Objectives for the portfolio to achieve as guidance for its management	Kopmann et al., 2017	LSa
	Portfolio management	Coordination and control of multiple projects competing for the same resources	Kopmann et al., 2017	LSa
	Portfolio optimization	Optimizing the mix of projects for greatest potential to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives	Cooper et al., 2004	LSf
	Benefits realization	Organizing and managing so potential benefits are really achieved	Bradley, 2014	LSa
Organizational Integration	Program	A group of projects whose benefits and control would not be achieved by managing them individually	Turner & Müller, 2003	LSf
	Megaproject	A large and complex investment project of many years’ duration and costs in excess of US$1 billion	Flyvbjerg, 2014
	Project	A temporary endeavor to create a unique product, service, or result	Turner & Müller, 2003
Project Governance	Institutions and roles	Institutions for the governance of individual projects such as sponsors, steering groups, PMOs, or advisory boards	Müller et al., 2017a	LSf
	Policies	Guidelines for decision-making in project execution in the organization	Müller, 2009	LSa
	Relations	Contract types such as fixed price, time and material, PPP, or relational	Turner, 2004	LSf
	Methodology	Project management approaches such as agile or waterfall	Müller, 2009	OP
Project Management	Project life cycle, project planning, project control	‘Best practices’ in executing projects such as those defined in related standards	PMI, 2017	LSa
Project Management	Project leadership	An interpersonal process for social influence	Drouin et al., 2018	MC
Organizational Performance	Project, program, portfolio, and organization-wide performance	Accomplishment of planned objectives, stakeholder satisfaction, and resource turnover at the project, program, portfolio, and organization-wide levels	Blomquist & Müller, 2006	Lsa
Demographics	Employees, industry, project type, project costs, country of project, role of respondent	Demographic information about the organization and the respondent	Various	MC FE

Note. PPP = public–private partnership; SD = semantic differential scale; MC = multiple choice; LSf = Likert scale from never to always; LSi = Likert scale from very low to very high; LSa = Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree; OP = order items by priority; FE = free entry.

References

AIPMO. (2022). PMO services and capabilities. AIPMO.

Artto

Kulvik

Poskela

Turkulainen

. (2011). The integrative role of the project management office in the front end of innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 408–421. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.008

Aubry

Hobbs

Müller

(2010). Images of PMOs: Results from a multi-phase research program. In Sandrino-Arndt

Thomas

R. L.

Becker

(Eds.), Handbuch project management office (1st ed., pp. 301–321). Symposion Publishing.

Aubry

Hobbs

Müller

Blomquist

. (2011). Identifying the forces driving frequent change in PMOs. Project Management Institute.

Aubry

Hobbs

Thuillier

. (2007). A new framework for understanding organisational project management through the PMO. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 328–336. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.01.004

Aubry

Müller

Glückler

. (2012). Governance and communities of PMOs . Project Management Institute.

Aubry

Brunet

. (2016). Organizational design in public administration: Categorization of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 107–129. 10.1177/875697281604700508

Aubry

Lavoie-Tremblay

. (2018). Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 12–26. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012

Aubry

Richer

M. C.

Lavoie-Tremblay

Cyr

. (2011). Pluralism in PMO performance: The case of a PMO dedicated to a major organizational transformation. Project Management Journal, 42(6), 60–77. 10.1002/pmj.20269

10.

Aubry

Richer

M.-C.

Lavoie-Tremblay

Fortin

Fortin Verreault

J.-F

. (2022). Revisiting organizational design in the light of isomorphism and equifinality: Insights from the study of three major transformation projects. Project Management Journal, 53(2), 161–180. 10.1177/87569728221075577

11.

Aubry

Sicotte

Drouin

Vidot-Delerue

Besner

. (2012). Organisational project management as a function within the organisation. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(2), 180–194. 10.1108/17538371211214897

12.

Bhaskar

. (2016). Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Routledge.

13.

Blomquist

Müller

. (2006). Middle managers in program and portfolio management: Practice, roles and responsibilities. Project Management Institute.

14.

Bradley

. (2014). Benefits realization management. In Turner

(Ed.), Gower handbook of project management (5th ed., pp. 123–137). Gower Publishing Limited.

15.

Cooper

R. G.

Edgett

S. J.

Kleinschmidt

E. J

. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD practices–I. Research Technology Management, 2004(January–February), 31–43.

16.

Crawford

. (2006). Developing organizational project management capability: Theory and practice. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 74–97.

17.

Cronbach

. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

18.

Donaldson

. (1987). Strategy and structural adjustment and regain fit to performance: In defence of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24(1), 1–24.

19.

Drouin

Müller

Sankaran

Vaagaasar

A. L

. (2018). Balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects: Empirical studies from Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(4), 986–1006. 10.1108/IJMPB-01-2018-0002

20.

Drouin

Jugdev

. (2014). Standing on the shoulders of strategic management giants to advance organizational project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(1), 61–77. 10.1108/IJMPB-04-2013-0021

21.

Englund

Müller

(2004). Leading change towards enterprise project management. Projects & Profits, ICFAI University Press, 2004(November), 22–33.

22.

Flyvbjerg

. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19. 10.1002/pmj

23.

Gareis

Huemann

. (2007). Maturity models for the project-oriented company. In Rodney Turner

(Ed.), Gower handbook of project management (4th ed., pp. 183–208). Gower Publishing Ltd.

24.

Greenwood

Miller

. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 78–89.

25.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

26.

Hair

J. F.

Babin

Money

Samouel

. (2003). Essentials of business research methods. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

27.

Hobbs

Aubry

. (2007). A multi-phase research program investigating project management offices (PMOs): The results of Phase 1. Project Management Journal, 38(1), 74–86.

28.

Hobbs

Aubry

. (2008). An empirically grounded search for a typology of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 39(Supplement), S69–S82.

29.

Hobbs

Aubry

Thuillier

. (2008). The project management office as an organizational innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 547–555.

30.

Karkukly

(2010). Outsourcing of project management office functions to improve organizational performance. Unpublished PhD thesis, SKEMA Business School, France.

31.

Kendall

G. I.

Rollins

S. C

. (2003). Advanced portfolio management and the PMO. J. Ross Publishing, Inc..

32.

Kopmann

Kock

Killen

C. P

. (2017). Project portfolio management. In Sankaran

Müller

Drouin

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of organizational project management. Cambridge University Press.

33.

. (2017). Governance and governmentality at Tasly Pharmaceuticals. In Müller

(Ed.), Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practices and consequences (pp. 238–248). Routledge.

34.

Midler

. (1995). “Projectification” of the firm: The Renault Case. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 363–375.

35.

Miterev

Engwall

Jerbrant

. (2017). Mechanisms of isomorphism in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(5), 9–24.

36.

Müller

. (2009). Project governance. Gower Publishing Ltd.

37.

Müller

Andersen

E. S.

Klakegg

O. J.

Volden

G. H

. (2017a). Governance institutions. In Müller

(Ed.), Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practices and consequences (pp. 51–66). Routledge.

38.

Müller

Lecoeuvre

. (2014). Operationalizing governance categories of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1346–1357. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.005

39.

Müller

Drouin

Sankaran

. (2019). Organizational project management: Theory and implementation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

40.

Müller

Shao

Pemsel

. (2016a). Organizational enablers for project governance . Project Management Institute.

41.

Müller

Zhai

Wang

Shao

. (2016b). A framework for governance of projects: Governmentality, governance structure and projectification. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6), 957–969. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.002

42.

Müller

Zhai

Wang

. (2017b). Governance and governmentality in projects: Profiles and relationships with success. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 378–392.

43.

Packendorff

. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333. 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00018-Q

44.

Partington

. (1996). The project management of organizational change. International Journal of Project Management, 14(1), 13–21.

45.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK^® guide)—Sixth edition. Author.

46.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2003). Organizational project management maturity model: Knowledge foundation. Author.

47.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK^® guide)—Fifth edition). Author.

48.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W

. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

49.

Sankaran

Müller

Drouin

. (2017). Cambridge handbook of organizational project management (S. Sankaran, R. Müller, & N. Drouin, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.

50.

Sankaran

Müller

Drouin

. (2019). A model for organizational project management and its validation. Project Governance & Controls Review, 2(1), 5–20.

51.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

. (2016). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

52.

Seidl

Whittington

. (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 8(35), 1–15.

53.

Simard

Aubry

Laberge

. (2018). The utopia of order versus chaos: A conceptual framework for governance, organizational design and governmentality in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 460–473.

54.

Tsaturyan

Müller

. (2015). Integration and governance of multiple project management offices (PMOs) at large organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1098–1110.

55.

Turner

J. R

. (2004). Farsighted project contract management: Incomplete in its entirety. Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), 75–83.

56.

Turner

J. R.

Keegan

. (2001). Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization: Roles of the broker and steward. European Management Journal, 19(3), 254–267.

57.

Turner

J. R.

Müller

. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–7.

58.

Turner

Miterev

. (2019). The organizational design of the project-based organization. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 487–498. 10.1177/8756972819859746