The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

IJMPB
9,2
The Project Management Office:
it’s just not what it used to be
Eric John Darling and Stephen Jonathan Whitty
282 Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Received 26 August 2015 Abstract

Revised 10 November 2015
Accepted 1 January 2016
Purpose – The Project Management Office (PMO) phenomenon is a dynamic and regularly evolving
feature of the project landscape. The functions and practices expected of the PMO differ as widely as
the industries and organisations, which host them. By uncovering the documented and undocumented
history of the PMO and its practices the authors see how PMOs have developed to current times, how
PMOs develop their ideas, how useful PMOs are, and what associated activities they partake in.
The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, the authors conduct an extensive literature review
of the academic and non-academic literature. The first phase involved searching academic journals and
published theses. The second, deep searches with Google Scholar and Books using a variety of
parameters to capture the changing nomenclature of the PMO over many years. These searches
discovered lost academic literature within university libraries, examples of very early essays on the
project office and numerous government reports on PMO and project office undertakings.
Findings – This research reveals how the form and use of the structure we now call the PMO has
evolved and adapted over time. In recent history the PMO has evolved to be the central repository for
tools and methodologies for this non-operational work. The PMO has become an asset, a commodity to
be traded upon and a badge to be worn to attain certain privileges.
Research limitations/implications – This research identifies a number of deficiencies in existing
literature. Particularly highlighting that many practices, methods and PMO typologies exist,
frequently their custodians tout these as “best practice”. Although some research has been conducted
by academics on PMOs vast gaps exist in PMO literature.
Practical implications – This research identifies a number of assumptions in practitioner
literature and professional practice. Organisations both private and public are investing
enormous resources in the pursuit of enhancing project management outcomes often turning to
the PMO concept to resolve their problems. However there is limited evidence to suggest PMOs
create a favourable return. If the authors were to use medicine as an example, prior to a scientific
approach in medicine the field relied on potions and magic, however medicine changed to evidence-
based practice this has lead to enhanced life prospects. An evolution in project management doctrine
may enhance outcomes.
Originality/value – This review of the PMO which possesses archaeological attributes in it’s
historical context adds a rich understanding to organisational knowledge by considering the history of
the PMO and the dramatic shifts in its purpose over a prolonged period of time. The discussion
draws out the critical PMO topics to be addressed and includes a critique of practitioner and
academic knowledge.
Keywords Standards, Best practice, Organizational knowledge, Project Management Office
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The organisational entity known as the Project Management Office (PMO) is a
relatively recent addition to the project landscape. The functions and practices
expected of the PMO differ as widely as the industries and organisations which host
International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business them. This paper, aims to highlight the function and practices of the PMO and its
Vol. 9 No. 2, 2016
pp. 282-308
evolution through time. The research focuses on the English written literature only.
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8378
The PMO and its various forms have been described from a historical to
DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-08-2015-0083 contemporary perspective to highlight its evolution, its changing function and how it
now in the presents itself to the corporate world. The various underpinning The Project
philosophies of the PMO are also explored. Management
Key themes of perceptions of the PMO as observed in the practitioner and academic
literature are examined to understand what PMOs are and what they do.
Office

2. Defining the PMO

The definitions used to describe the PMO have evolved over time. Early examples 283
appear to discuss the PMO in relation to a functional application.
The earliest reference to a Project Office pertains to the improvement of agriculture
in the UK. This 1800s view of a Project Office although not defined appears to be a
proposal for a type of national governance and strategy in relation to agriculture, such
as a Project Office for the Board of Agriculture (Bell, 1805).
A 1950s style definition of the PMO is consistent with how we view the PMO in
contemporary times suggesting that it is; “A group of project management staff
assigned to bring about the development of an asset on behalf of the project sponsor” in
other words an organisation dedicated to achieving a specific goal (Gaddis, 1959;
Kerzner, 1979, 2003). In this setting PMOs were an organisation within an organisation
to establish closer relationships with the client further the PMO supports the project
manager in carrying out his or her duties therefore the PMO is a pragmatic customer
focused entity (Kerzner, 2000b, 2003). Departing from the traditional iron triangle
concept Kerzner (1979) introduces a human element in the project office of how
individuals professional training affects their preferred work style, further suggesting
approaches to Project Office staff engagement.
Today the PMO is an organisational business unit. It is claimed that it is
established from the necessity to enhance the ability of the organisation in the
delivery of projects (Aubry et al., 2007; Project Management Institute, 2013).
The PMBoK Guide (Project Management Institute, 2013) page 11 describes the
PMO as a management structure that; “standardizes [sic] the project-related
governance processes and facilitates the sharing of resources, methodologies, tools,
and techniques”.
The PMO is seen as a dynamic entity “to solve specific issues within dynamic
organizations” (Aubry et al., 2010a). Further functionally diverse PMOs have been
observed to act as advisors to project teams and as direct managers of project teams
(Ward, 2013).
The PMI’s PMBoK guide discussion on the PMO matures over time; neither the 1987
or 1996 first edition PMBoK Guide mentions the PMO (Project Management Institute,
1996; Wideman, 1987). The second edition was the first PMBoK Guide to discuss the
Project Office, this was provided in two sentences stating Project Offices come in a
variety of forms and have a variety of functions (Project Management Institute, 2000).
The third edition states PMOs are varied but they may be used to coordinate the
organisations business objectives though projects, further description of key PMO
features is listed (Project Management Institute, 2004). The fourth edition of the
PMBoK Guide has a similar description to previous editions (Project Management
Institute, 2008). The fifth edition of the PMBoK Guide included new material including
a general description of three PMO typologies being supportive, controlling and
directive, however it does say several typologies are observed (Project Management
Institute, 2013) (Table I).
The PMO may be known by other titles within organisations who have not adopted
the Project Management Institutes concept of “best practice” PMOs.
IJMPB 2.1 The problem
9,2 There is a claim of PMO practice, frequently referred to as “best practice” in enhancing
organisational project outcomes. PMOs have been in existence since the early 1800s
(Bell, 1805). The early 1900s saw the term Project Office regularly used particularly in
aligned with civil infrastructure projects. In the 1950s the PMO evolved to become
somewhat recognisable to a modern PMO, often this typology of PMOs were seen in the
284 apex industries of the time such as space and aerospace (Larman and Basili, 2003).
PMOs were certainly seen in commercial and government sectors in the 1960s and
developing through to current times, however it was in the late 1990s that the PMO
concept proliferated in commercial and government sectors (Binder, 2007). There is a
need to understand PMO practices, what makes them “best” if indeed they are; what
enables them to add benefit; if they do add benefit then to whom are these appropriated;
and primarily where do PMO best practices come from?

3. Methodology
This study intends to develop an understanding of how the PMO has developed over
an extended period of time, highlighting practices and their respective effectiveness,
essentially how have PMOs developed to their current status. Through this historical
context the questions of where PMO practices come from, are they best and do they add
benefit can be asked. The literature review study is by means of a systematic review.
Tranfield et al. (2003) describe the systematic review as being transparent, scientific,
replicable and an evidence-based methodology which minimises bias. The aim of
systematic review in management literature is to ensure developing theory is valid and
relevant essentially adding scientific process to a field often dominated by qualitative
research, as this is a literature review the research is considered secondary (Cook et al.,
1997). Additionally it is highlighted that this research on PMOs intends to be an
explorative in nature leading to future primary research and further development of
knowledge. The purpose of a literature review is to examine existing knowledge of the
subject, the methodology of how existing knowledge was developed and identify gaps
in the existing knowledge.

3.1 Method
The research method has focused on a systematic literature review of the academic and
non-academic literature. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted with a
particular emphasis on three project management journals (Project Management
Journal, International Journal of Project Management and International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business), although not limited to the three the study also
targeted the various project management associations and their publications
concerning PMOs over a longitudinal period. The second source of literature was
found by manipulating Google Scholar and Books search terms, this was particularly
useful locating non-academic literature and early essays, which are not contained

A number of synonyms are used to describe the PMO

Project Office Project or Programme Management Centre of Excellence

Table I. Project Management Office Project Portfolio Office, and
PMO synonyms Programme Management Office Project Performance Office
within the academic libraries. The search terms were based on the variety of names The Project
given to the PMO over many years. Individual consideration of each published article Management
was taken to ensure relevancy and that the literature took a specific interest in the PMO
rather than a fleeting glimpse.
Office

4. A historical perspective of the PMO

A history of the PMO has not been collaborated or described in the literature. Historical 285
documentation of the PMO is deficient. Yet through the many examples of human
endeavour to create civil states including, spiritual temples, societal housing, territorial
structures and agriculture, a form of PMO must have existed as either a singular or
group of key actors. The reason for the lack of documentation may be placed with
language differences, the verbal traditions of past civilisations and the destruction of
paper evidence, due to man-made or natural disasters. Certainly the previous isolation
of governments and organisations due to primitive local and global communications, as
well as intellectual property protection, may have contributed to these limitations.
A timeline of PMO literature is displayed in Table II.

4.1 From 1800 to 1930: the project office

4.1.1 1800s: for running government schemes. The concept of the PMO has been
recorded as early 1805 in Britain (Bell, 1805). Originally the project office was a collective
for running government strategy, particularly in the agricultural sector. However, this
also had implications in taxation due to agriculture subsidies and international trade as
produce was to be exported in order to enhance the nation’s wealth.
During the nineteenth century, European nations were engaged in competition for
resources, this took form by military means and strategic governance. Additionally
war, famines, epidemic disease and poor sanitation were commonplace. Therefore
many countries established social services such as water and sanitation, and improving
agriculture, thereby improving the mortality rate and the countries prosperity.
Bell’s (1805) discussion broadly considers productivity enhancements for Britain’s
agriculture and taxation system. He was against having large national debt and
considered it a hindrance in times of peace and war. The project itself was a national tax
scheme designed to encourage productivity with the refinement and implementation of
taxes, promotion of agriculture and the importation and exportation of goods.
The project office was the pragmatic group who would run such a scheme. In short, its
function was to handle delivery when no other operational structure had the capability.
4.1.2 1900-1910: for controlling costs and demonstrating transparency. In the USA
government audit and accountability documents mentioning the project office can be
traced to as early as 1905 (Slichter, 1905). Persistent themes of US project offices focus
on cost control, originally in civil engineering endeavours and later in defence,
technology and foreign aid to name a few. The methods of cost control do not appear to
be particularly elaborate rather they gather costs incurred in a reactive fashion. Cost
control was a point raised in the UK’s House of Commons concerning a Royal Air Force
PMOs ineffective budget control and insufficiently trained accounting staff (Great
Britain Parliment House of Commons, 1971).
The USA had seen government corruption in the form of Tammany Hall, which
embezzled large amounts of government funds intended for social services and
development projects (Kilroe, 1913). The 1900-1910 periods was the peak of the
progressive era, which was a movement for social and political reform against corruption.
IJMPB Period Observation Typology
9,2
1805 The British Critic mentions the Project Office, this paper was based on Scholarly given the era,
an 1802 essay on a combination of agricultural land improvement and in contemporary times
international trade of agricultural products including a favourable Normative
taxation scheme
1900-1930 US Government publish articles concerning water supply, irrigation and Normative
286 agriculture discussions include sponsors need for the Project Office to control
project costs
1930-1950 US Government publish articles pertaining to Project Office of various heavy Normative
civil engineering projects of the day. Including Hoover Dam, Atomic Energy
1939 Appears to be first instance of the term Project Management Office being Normative
published. The article was written by the US Housing Authority, however
they are not considering the PMO to be the same as the modern PMO. This
1939 example of a PMO is considered to the caretaker office of residential
public housing, often referred to as “the projects”
1950 The PMO is considered the group which delivers the project Normative
1950s Appear to be the decade where Project Management Office Normative
became more widely used
US Government audit documents relate to:
Agriculture research
Defence
Government housing
Geology
Highway design
Water management
Large engineering endeavours; and
Various federal projects or programmes
1960s The term PMO becomes widely observed in articles published by the US Normative
Government
US Government publish numerous articles relating to:
All themes of the 1950s
NASA
Coastguard
Education
Foreign aid (Asia)
US Commission on Marine Science and Resources; and
US National Science Foundation Division of Polar Research
1970s A continuation of the previous two decades. The US Government publishes Normative
articles of a similar theme and the term PMO appears to be reinforced Academic
US Government publish numerous articles relating to:
All themes of the 1950s and 1960s
Energy – Oil, gas, nuclear, national fuel reserves
Foreign aid particularly water and agriculture of the Philippines; and
World Bank initiatives in Asia
Major change with US Defence Acquisition University publishing specific
research articles on the PMO
1971 UK Parliament House of Commons mention a PMO of the Royal Air Force, the Normative
discussion pertains to ineffective cost control and accountancy training
1980s The PMO continues to be discussed by US Government documents however
the PMO is now seen in new fields
US Government publish numerous articles relating to:
Table II.
Timeline of
PMO literature (continued )
Period Observation Typology
The Project
Management
All themes of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s
Commercial construction
Office
Polar research gains momentum
World Bank in China
Environmental Protection Agency
National parks 287
Rail
1981 Software development PMO is discussed Normative
British Standards Institute mention the PMO Professional
1985 onward we observe structural changes in the types of PMO literature Professional
PMI articles mention the PMO Normative
Software development
Governments of Asia publish articles which mention PMOs, Indonesia,
Philippines, Sri Lanka
Engineering projects in South Africa
US Government continues to publish articles relating to the same discussions
of 1950 onward
Aqua culture
Conducting super collider
1986 The first business books containing the idea of a PMO appear Professional
1987 Project Management Body of Knowledge by Max Widerman Professional
1990 Changes in PMO literature of the 1980s gain pace Professional
The US Government senate committees and audits remain a common theme. Normative
In addition evidence suggests investigations into the National Security
Agencies software PMO
Foreign aid to Asia from US Government and Europe features throughout the
published articles
Changes observed:
Asia particularly Philippines, Sri Lanka, Brunei, Indonesia see’s widespread
use of the PMO and now they are publishing their own reports
Africa begins to document PMOs
Telecommunications and software development PMOs become a topic
of publication
Water management and agriculture re-emerge
National parks PMOs gather pace
PMI discussions are more frequent
Canadian Government audits Defence PMO; and
Business books on PMOs gain popularity
1995 Period preceding the PMO becoming a commodity Professional
Numerous business books featuring the PMO are published, Amacom. Normative
The more reputable Wiley also publish books mentioning PMOs
UK OGC ITIL mention PMOs
World Bank concerning Asia
Bangladesh Government Fisheries have a PMO
Asian Development Bank
Hong Kong infrastructure mention PMOs; and
US Government continues to mention PMO, energy, water, health, defence,
construction, ocean
1995 Inquiring into the temporary organisation: new directions for project Academic
management research by Johann Packendorff

(continued ) Table II.

IJMPB Period Observation Typology
9,2
1995 Computer world discusses PMOs should standardise PM Professional
1996 A Guide To The Project Management Body of Knowledge 1st edition Professional
2000 The PMO becomes a commodity Professional
Proliferation of business books on PMO discussion Normative
Study guides on how to pass project management association certificates
288 observe PMOs
First novel mentioning a PMO appears The McClellan Legacy, 2000
Commercialised books on NASA’s PMO appear
China and Brazil are observed with PMOs
Hong Kong’s infrastructure development use PMOs
Foreign aid in Asia features regularly with PMOs
Software development and PMOs become more widespread
The usual themes of US Government PMOs continue
2000 A Guide To The Project Management Body of Knowledge 2nd edition Professional
2002 Christine Dai of George Washington University publishes her PhD thesis: Academic
the role of the project management office in achieving project success
2004 A Guide To The Project Management Body of Knowledge 3rd edition Professional
2005 2005, The PMO as a commodity becomes solidified Professional
PMO Gurus with 5 years experience in PMOs and have read all the books Normative
appear
Business books and study guides on PMOs takeover as the dominate
literature on PMOs
Agile emerges with some discussion on PMO
Concept of global PM emerges
CMMI mentions PMOs
US Government Accountability Office discuss the Cost of War PMO and
Re-establishment of Iraq PMO
Software development and broader IT field adopt PMOs
World Bank Asia
Polar research still features
Literature out of Germany appears on PMOs
Proliferation of academic research on PMOs Academic
2005 Knowledge wisdom and networks: a project management centre of excellence Academic
example by Derek Walker and Dale Christenson
2007 A multi-phase research programme investigating Project Management Academic
Offices (PMOS): the results of phase 1 by Monique Aubry Brian Hobbs
2007 The contingent effects on project performance of conducting project reviews Academic
and deploying project management offices by Li Liu Phillip Yetton
2008 How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and Academic
continuous improvement by Jerry Julian
2008 A Guide To The Project Management Body of Knowledge 4th edition Professional
2008 Making a difference? Evaluating an innovative approach to the project Academic
management Centre of Excellence in a UK government department by
Tim O’Leary Terry Williams
2009 Building value through sustainable project management offices by Mimi Hurt Academic
Janice Thomas
Table II. 2013 A Guide To The Project Management Body of Knowledge 5th edition Professional

As a result of this corruption the US Government became focused on transparency

and published numerous senate enquires, congress documents and accountability
audits of project offices. This transparency continues to current times (Fleischman and
Marquette, 1986).
 4.1.3 1910-1930 – the Quango. The US Government expands their publication of The Project
senate enquires which mention the project office with the establishment of the US Management
Government Accountability Office (2015) which on behalf of congress investigates how
federal government agencies appropriate public funds, specifically of interest are
Office
government programmes and projects. However the term project office is not defined.
Often the project office is considered to be the group of actors that manage an initiative,
control materials, equipment and human resources. Published projects appear to relate to 289
water supply, irrigation and agriculture. In the case of the Tumalo irrigation project the
project office was responsible for records keeping, contract negotiation and
communication with stakeholders. It is noteworthy the Tumalo project commenced
commercially then became controversial due to dealings of its management and
was taken over by the state. Largely it did not meet its purpose (Laurgaard, 1914).
The Flathead Irrigation project commenced in 1904 but was not completed until the
mid-1960s. It also had a project office which was responsible for the project in its entirety
including overseeing run-off and storage studies, cost estimating, land acquisition,
construction, labour supply and reporting (US Congress Committee on Indian Affairs,
1919). Given Flathead Irrigation project ran for over 50 year it would be reasonable to say
the project office went through many changes during this time, although the functions
are not described. Civil engineering projects feature regularly during this pre-war era.
Additionally featuring prominently in the project office literature is the concept of
the project office relating to public housing and government employee accommodation
(McCarl, 1926). This type of Project Office resembles more of a landlord style function
rather than the contemporary consensus of a Project Office. When mentioning
the Project Office it is often in fleeting comments, the focus of the literature is not the
Project Office itself. It appears the Project Office is simply a vehicle through which
pragmatic result are achieved. An example of an early Project Office matter is included.
Posting rates – when the rates as above provided for have been approved they
should be posted at some point where they can be observed by all employees.
Applications to rent buildings or tents should be signed by employees occupying
Government buildings and tents, only one copy being taken, this to be filed in the
project office (McCarl, 1926).

4.2 From 1930 to 1950: the PMO

4.2.1 1930-1950 – a change in naming convention. The US Government publications
continue with civil infrastructure projects and expand into other government
sponsored initiatives such as the Hoover Dam and atomic energy. In the case of
Hoover Dam, scant description of the Project Office is given. However, reference is
given that the Project Office collects and collates the aerial photography mosaic
which had been outsourced to Brock & Weymouth Co. Further there is description
that the contact for outsourcing contained a requirement specification detailing
the photography required by the Project Office (US Congress Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, 1949; Wilbur and Mead, 1933).
1939 appears to the earliest instance of the term PMO being published (US Housing
Authority, 1939). The Bulletin on Policy and Procedure was written by the US Housing
Authority and relates to public housing which is often referred to as “the projects”.
The term PMO focuses on the administration of residential accommodation on behalf of
the state. The paper suggests the PMO should perform maintenance tasks of the
building that it is responsible for (US Housing Authority, 1939).
IJMPB 4.3 From 1950-1995: the project and programme management office
9,2 4.3.1 1950 – a means of accountability. During the 1950s the term PMO surpasses the
use of Project Office. There was no mandate or guiding project management body
which selected this terminology as they did not appear until the 1960s (McKenna and
Whitty, 2012). The term PMO appears to have been preferentially selected. However, it
was not to be until the 1990s that the PMO became a widely adapted organisational
290 entity (McKenna and Whitty, 2012).
In the 1950s the US Government continued to publish PMO accountability articles
relating to agriculture research, defence, government housing, geology, highway
design, water management, large engineering endeavours, various federal projects
and programmes.
The battle between bureaucratic organisations with their time, quality, cost constraints
and the innovative nature of science and engineering has been highlighted almost as early
as these project management techniques have been applied (Gaddis, 1959).
The earliest military PMO observed in the literature was formed in 1954 as the US
Navy Civil Engineers 11th Naval District Public Works Office had a PMO since
30 December of that year (US Navy Civil Engineer Corps, 1957). The literature does not
discuss the features of the PMO other to say it is a “standard organisation”.
4.3.2 1960 – a pragmatic way to manage non-operational work. The term PMO
becomes widely observed in US Government accountability articles of the 1960s.
The US Government publishes PMO articles relating to all themes of their 1950s
articles with particular emphasis on NASA, US Coastguard, US Defence, US National
Science Foundation Division of Polar Research and Education (Barker and Gump, 1964;
US Congress, 1965; US Congress Committee on Appropriations, 1969; US Division of
the Federal Register, 1965).
In the 1960s numerous organisations appear to have a PMO or a PO. However, their
form, function and purpose had not yet been defined or described in the literature. From
agriculture and taxation to housing, civil infrastructure, military acquisition, scientific
exploration (in space, deep sea and polar) education, numerous government entities and
for-profit organisations mention they have a PMO. It is possible these PMOs and POs
evolved naturally from pragmatic beginnings and with the interference of other
management concepts were selectively chosen which features to keep.
4.3.3 1970 – the beginnings of a humanistic description. Researchers have pursued
scholarly interest on the entity of the PMO since at least the 1970s. Often the research
focused on human interactions, behavioural science and reputation management
(Arnette, 1973; Green, 1975; Hodder, 1974; Massem, 1973; Smith, 1973). All fields are
severely lacking in the practitioner-authored literature. Also it is noteworthy that it was
the US military which first considered the human dimension in PMOs, therefore the US
military considered humanistic research to be useful in achieving their pursuit of
improving project outcomes.
The Canadian Government commissioned management forum Optimum, does not
define a PMO. However they did describe some human elements seen in PMOs. There is
a very real team development and maintenance problem with project management
teams. The project teams are made up of specialists whose purpose is to achieve project
objectives under a team leader. This human relations environment is described as akin
to a wartime operations group (Public Work and Government Services Canada, 1977).
Diverging from previous publications of the PMO is the body of literature published
by the Defence Systems Management College of the US Defence Acquisition University.
The series of PMO papers published in the 1970s is the first instance of PMO specific The Project
organisational research. These Defence Systems Management College publications Management
(Arnette, 1973; Massem, 1973; Smith, 1973; Hodder, 1974; Green, 1975; Schmidt, 1975;
Cooksey, 1976; Davis, 1976) differ from previous generations of literature, which largely
Office
consist of government accountability documents or in the example Bell (1805) a
complicated financial strategy enacted at the national level. Instead the 1970s was the
period when organisational researchers started to observe what is happening inside PMOs. 291
Of concern was how an army officer transitions from a military role into a PMO
environment. Human traits of personality, interpersonal relationships, as well as job
description factors were considered. The findings include officers go from the highly
authoritarian military leadership style to a more democratic environment where
subordinates are more involved in decision making. The officer in transition is likely to
experience a loss of positional derived power and would need to utilise personal power
developed by human skills and technical expertise (Cooksey, 1976).
Credibility weakness was investigated in relation to the managerial behaviour and
credibility or believability of the PMO staff. Smith (1973) notes that complete credibility
is never truly achievable however a number of behaviours can be utilised to maximise
the credibility of PMO staff.
Adding to the PMO literature of appearance management, negative media attention
to defence projects are largely based on negative perceptions of inadequate equipment
or financial overruns (Green, 1975). Successes in defence projects should be shared with
the media, but the public information practice must be considered. A PMO which
successfully creates its end product is a must have as a positive media message
requires a product which is tangible. The PM should be candid on security matters.
As costs are a heated topic with defence projects attention should be focused on the
delivery of communication concerning finances (Green, 1975).
Staffing projects with appropriate people has been a concern. Massem (1973)
enquires what adequate PMO staff are and should personnel problems be as much of a
concern as cost, schedule and technical uncertainty (Massem, 1973). Massem’s work is
possibly the earliest human resources consideration for project management.
Interpersonal relations were clearly a pertinent topic at the Defence Systems
Management College. A case study examined the relations between a military officer
and the civilian colleague within the PMO. Factors highlighted include perception,
management styles, communication, and individuals needs and self-awareness of how
one’s own goals effect relations with the project management team (Hodder, 1974).
Additionally engineering trained staff ambitious to transition to project management
need to developed skills in business, psychology and sociology (Kerzner, 1979).
Continuing with the human aspect of the PMO, US military officers as part of their
management training are exposed to substantial behavioural science theories such as the
work of Herzberg (1959) and Argyris (1957). However Arnette (1973) notes the theory
taught to staff does not appear in their practice. Arnette (1973) intended to provide
pragmatic advice on how to apply management theory as useable tools. In contemporary
times behavioural science is not addressed in depth by key project management
publications such as the PMBoK Guide (Project Management Institute, 2013). However
the PMBoK Guide since 1987 has contained a brief section on Human Resource
Management though largely describing the process mechanics of Human Resources
matters as opposed behavioural science (Project Management Institute, 1996, 2000, 2004,
2008, 2013; Wideman, 1987).
IJMPB One of the first articles relating to the PMO and using computers to provide
9,2 automatic data processing support was conceived by the US Defence Department.
Schmidt (1975) investigated both feasibility and regulations to utilise the emerging
resource of computing. Innovative data processing applications were available at the
time, but US Defence Department procurement regulations were seen as a hindrance
(Schmidt, 1975).
292 As mentioned previously, costs have been a major factor in PMO literature from
both a functional perspective and a matter of perception. Investigating project costs at
the initial cost estimating stage was the topic of Davis (1976) research into a US Army
PMO. The primary problems with estimates were found to be unforeseen high level
changes, inflation, inaccurate cost estimating, technical problems and lack of
information (Davis, 1976). Davis (1976) concludes the PMO would benefit from learning
to deal with uncertainty and improve estimating capability.
It appears the human side of the PMO was an area of interest to the US Defence
services during the 1970s, the nature of enquiry is significantly different to all other
PMO literature except that of the academic community largely published from the early
2000s to current. Additionally the Defence Systems Management College PMO
literature is almost unheard of outside US Defence circles and very little has been
circulated since the 1970s, which reinforces the assumption PMO knowledge, may have
existed in many different cultures but has been lost (Parise et al., 2006).
4.3.4 1980 – the project managers’ tool shed. The decade of 1980s continues to see
US government accountability articles published, this is in the same manner as through
previous decades.
Numerous PMO literature transformations take place in the 1980s. PMOs are now
included in discussions relating to software development. However, the PMO is neither
defined nor described. What is known is the US Agency for International Development
sponsored an Information and Decision Support System software development, which
assists scientists with organising their research. The software project F/FRED is run
by a PMO based in Arlington, Virginia, USA (Cady et al., 1988).
In the early 1980s the Project Management Institute began publishing practitioner
literature including A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK
Guide) (Project Management Institute, 2013). In one instance Stuckenbruck (1981)
advises everybody who works on a project should know what the PMO does and is
responsible for, however neither early versions of the PMBoK Guide or Stuckenbruck
(1981) define a PMO. Business books containing the idea of a PMO are published more
regularly than any previous time. Business books published during this time contain
an essence of engineering focus and the concepts of project management appear to be
expected of the reader. Similar to the PMI there was no attempt to define the PMO
(Gilmore and Schwartz, 1986). However, the increased sharing of the PMO concept may
be a factor in why we see a large increase in PMOs during the 1990s.
With the accessibility of personal computing during the 1980s and 1990s computer-
based technology drove a revival in organisational based project management
research, creating expert systems for project planning, control and risk analysis
(Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006). Although sophisticated tools and techniques were
developed, only the most basic were selected for use by the practitioner community,
and often not utilised as they were intended (Packendorff, 1995). Tool selection by
project managers were not often based on the best for the job, but rather because they
were the easiest to use or just good enough (Whitty, 2011). There appears to be an
emerging theme in the 1980s PMO literature, that the PMO selects tools, processes and The Project
methodologies, which must be used by project managers. Management
The World Bank and governments of Asian countries including Indonesia,
Philippines and Sri Lanka begin to publish their own articles which briefly mention the
Office
PMO, these are similar to the accountability articles the USA has published for eight
decades (Ekanayake et al., 1990; Indonesia Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Project
Management Office, 1988; University of the Philippines, 1985; Walker, 1990). In the case 293
of a Cameroon PMO it is stated the PMO is responsible for overall guidance,
channelling of external funds and the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of project
activities. However implementation was left to the “executing agencies”. Further it is
outlined the organisation had a financial control group and a planning group which
were separate from the PMO (Walker, 1990).
During the 1980s and 1990s very few scholarly papers on the PMO were published.
Alternatively this was the period which saw a large transition from academic and
defence related research to professional associations and corporations publishing their
view of the PMO.
4.3.5 1990 – a role of benchmarking best practice. The transformation of PMO
literature increases pace during the 1990s. The US Government continues to publish
audits of all traditional PMOs. However, now they specifically audit software and
technology PMOs of US Government agencies. This shift in PMOs reflects the changes
in technological endeavours.
Asian countries increase publishing their own audits of their PMOs.
Telecommunications and software development gain a niche in PMO literature
(Chua and Scura, 1992; Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998; Dube, 1998; Middendorp et al.,
1999; World Bank Staff, 1997). The water management themes of the earlier part of the
century re-emerge in the literature (Spurgeon, 1995). And PMI authored PMO articles
become more prevalent (Wells, 1999).
The 1990s see a pronounced level of business books referring to the PMO entity
increase. In addition, these books mentioning the PMO are business focused instead of
engineering management books (Block and Frame, 1998; Cleland and Ireland, 1999;
Toney and Powers, 1997).
Educational institutions of the US military continue to show the PMO some interest as
original research continues to be published in the early 1990s. A Master of Science thesis
by Carol A. Roetzler investigated the dimensions of team performance in a military PMO.
Roetzler (1994) identifies 16 characteristics of positive project performance. The
characteristics are: information, material resources, competence, organisation support,
mission clarity, team coordination, commitment, team unity, individual goals, team
assessment, feedback, empowerment, leadership, rewards and satisfaction.
Additionally teamwork was highlighted as a critical factor in PMOs and more effort
expended here would deliver better outcomes (Roetzler, 1994). The research method
involved a mixed method approach. The qualitative method consisted of a literature
review and open-ended interviews with a range of project staff. The quantitative
approach was by the Campbell-Hallam Team Development Survey (Roetzler, 1994).
The mid 1990s appears to be the period immediately prior to commoditisation of the
PMO. During this time numerous business books featuring the PMO are published
(Bodunde-Badiru, 1996; deGuzman, 1999; Dinsmore, 1999; Kerzner, 1998).
A key theme of business books mentioning PMOs is they are regularly based on the
Tayloristic Scientific Management model. The model manifests in project management
IJMPB as the Iron Triangle perceived constraint and certainly is a pre-1960’s concept
9,2 (Engwall, 1995; Morris and Hough, 1997). It visualises the three points of time, cost and
quality which the project manager is often bound to in delivering products (Project
Management Institute, 2013; Whitty, 2010). Similar to project perceptions, PMO
perceptions have developed without rigour and become the accepted principle. Kerzner
(2003) demonstrates that PMOs are responsible for the development of processes and
294 benchmarking amongst other practices in order to establish best practice. These
activities are deemed to have a pronounced effect on the company’s bottom line ( Johnson
et al., 2002; Kerzner, 2003; Rad and Levin, 2007). US-based consultants are influenced by
the American application of the Iron Triangle model and go as far as to suggest a
timeline for the implementation of a PMO should be:
• Project level PMO 3 months – 1 year;
• Division level PMO 1-3 years; and
• Corporate PMO 3-7 years (Rad and Levin, 2002).
The practitioner community continues to publish “how to” guides, with main reasons
why PMOs work or do not work, the key list of things a PMO should do which in reality
is often a list of opinions Kerzner (2003) amongst others Bodunde-Badiru (1996),
deGuzman (1999) and Dinsmore (1999) do not substantiate their views with research.
Proponents of the Iron Triangle are bound by its influence that they appear to be their
own genre of project managers. In this paper the Iron Triangle model is highlighted as
a type of thought process and practice, replicated in projects organisations.
The practitioner community trend of writing papers and books without
substantiated research risks enshrining opinions as fact. Hodgson and Cicmil (2006)
observed that PMO literature pre 1960s consisted of quantitative method research.
Since then the focus on the Iron Triangle model as a paramount theme began to change,
influenced by broader matters of organisational research and influencing its
application. Even in the 1990s there appears that little evidence or learned thought
has been adopted in the mainstream literature concerning PMOs.
However, the PMO concept is prevalent. Many papers mention the PMO in a
sentence or small paragraph, advocating the value of PMOs in managing projects, or
presenting “how to” models for best practice, quoting the PMBoK Guide (Hill, 2004;
Santos et al., 2008). The PMO “how to” models are similar, advocating a mechanical
approach to project management and do not portray contemporary management
knowledge (Hill, 2004; Santos et al., 2008). Academic research and peer review often has
not been applied.
The PMO as a research topic re-emerged in the late 1990s. It should be noted that
numerous university lectures and PhD graduates albeit in other fields began writing
opinion pieces or practitioner focused articles initially during this time, examples
include Kerzner (2000a), Rad (2001) and Wells (1999). Also at the time, globally there
was a rise in post-graduate university courses specialising in project management.
Given the environment at the time consisting of a rise in projectification of
work, academic authors such as Aubry and Hobbs (2007), Hodgson and Cicmil (2006),
Maylor et al. (2006) and Packendorff (1995) writing catalytic papers, business books
mentioning the PMO, the market for university courses and the always looming subject
of project failure, the era was primed for a more thorough level of scrutiny by
management researchers.
 4.3.6 2000s – a commodity to be traded – and traded on. The naming of PMOs or The Project
centres of excellence, is a recent phenomenon although one of the first earnest centres Management
of excellence was by IBM in 1996 (Project Management Institute, 2011).
The contemporary development and refinement of PM text, and the academic
Office
descriptions, have rendered PMOs as a distinct discipline. The result is in the
acceptance, development and description of the PMO in contemporary literature.
The literature often describes the historical development of project management 295
with little description of the PMO. The descriptions offered regularly repeat each other
on the topics of PMO models, best practice, PM maturity development, etc. (Binder,
2007). Due to the nature and urgency of developing infrastructure in the twentieth
century, precedence of tacit knowledge may have superseded academic knowledge.
However it is reasonable to deduce that the role of the project manager and the PMO
have somewhat co-evolved as a department or group within an organisation.
From around 2000 the PMO becomes a commodity within itself. Numerous study
guides on how to pass project management association certifications highlight the
PMO. The novel the McClellan Legacy is published which references a PMO, and this is
an example of how the PMO has now entered entertainment culture (Doherty, 2000).
In 2001 a significant event occurs for PMOs, Christine Dai of George Washington
University publishes her PhD thesis: the role of the PMO in achieving project success
(Dai, 2001). This is believed to be the first PhD thesis focusing on a PMO. The research
focused on three core questions: the impact of a PMO on reported project success;
develop an index of functions and services observed in PMO practice; and whether
having a PMO impacts on critical success factors (Dai, 2001). The research consisted
of a mixed method approach, findings include: first, the impact of a PMO on project
success can be described as mixed, organisations were found to experience both
enhanced and degraded outcomes with the introduction of a PMO. Dai (2001)
did conclude having a PMO is not a supportive factor in better project success. Second,
the most frequent PMO service as identified by respondents was “PM standards
and methods” followed by “consulting and mentoring” additional functions were
observed including support and administration (Dai, 2001). Third, the presence of a
PMO does not impact on a successful project however some of the PMO functions
impact on project success (Dai 2001). Dai (2001) notes research findings are not always
neatly packaged and obvious, there may be over variables which are difficult to
identify or isolate.
Lastly, Dai (2001) highlights that well-developed and structured literature on the
PMO is lacking. Much of the existing PMO information seems to be based on anecdotes,
personal experiences and consultants advice (Dai 2001). It is worthy to note that Dai
(2001) often refers to the PMI for defining PMO aspects and project management
literature, which is not referenced.
Initially commencing this renaissance of PMO research a swell of papers were
published by US authors, in particular (Dai and Wells, 2004; Kerzner, 1998, 2003;
Rad and Levin, 2007). The academic backgrounds of these authors was not necessarily
aligned to organisational research with the exception of Dai and Wells (Dai and Wells,
2004; Kerzner, 1998, 2003; Rad and Levin, 2007; Root, 2006).
In the case of Kerzner a former engineer, publications are solutions focused and based
on management concepts pre-1960. The literature is heavily based on the scientific
centric model and appeals to the practitioner community through the simple step-by-step
approach, which at first appears to be pragmatic to the Newtonian-Tayloristic mindset.
IJMPB However, from an organisational research perspective lacks elements such as
9,2 behavioural science or knowledge management among others (Kerzner, 1998, 2003).
As described whilst engineering projects have been one application of PMOs, certainly
many more fields have also utilised the PMO concept.
Although the scientific management approach espouses to provide a guide to
achieving uniform outcomes in PMOs and project management, with Iron Triangle
296 tools of time, cost and quality referred to as the hard side; the soft side of human
considerations are not addressed as well as they could be.
There is an element of PMBoK centricity in some academic published material. Santos
et al. (2008) discusses PMO principles as suggested by the PMBoK and in concluding
suggest that success between corporate governance and project management is all about
the result. Therefore the PMO facilitates goals into results. However, this key conclusion
has not been substantiated, merely suggested. What the study did highlight was
the research approach of a South-American culture, the cult mentality of adhering to the
PMBoK without rational debate and its influence by societal ideals (Whitty, 2011).
Rad and Levin (2007) also adheres to the triple constraint of project management
stating success is based on any or all of the three elements. Arguing for improved
success rate in projects and suggesting the PMO is well positioned to define and
implement competency standards for project managers. The first step is to identify
characteristics of those project managers who are successful, it is advised to consider a
quantitative measure to ensure those selected are successful (Rad and Levin, 2007).
However selection by characteristics presents it’s own inherent risk of selection based
on familiarity, instead of rational thought (Hallgren et al., 2012; Whitty, 2005). Arguing
the benefit of a PMO Rad (2001) highlights formal and consistent project management,
better cost, schedule, scope and people performance is possible.
There are some exceptions to the scientific project management based research such
as Dai and Wells (2004), which investigated the environmental conditions that PMOs
operate within, their functions and the related performance differential on projects.
Although this concept maintains interest of capitalist ideals it also carries themes of
Scandinavian and British researchers which take a broader anthropological
perspective when attempting to understand organisations.
Distinct in approach to US-based project management research is a group of
management researchers who come from various countries of the Scandinavian region.
Scandinavian and European countries have a strongly ingrained socialist outlook
evident in their history of village culture (Barth, 1995; Lin, 2005). Contemporary
political and social outlook continue to reflect the historical social integration and
has further embedded these principles into Scandinavian management culture.
The contrast between Scandinavian and scientific management approaches are akin to
the differences between sociological and functionalism (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006).
Packendorff is an Industrial Management researcher and one of the earlier
Scandinavian authors of PMO centric research.
The global literature shows three fundamental deficiencies ingrained in the research
of project management and PMO (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Packendorff 1995):
(1) the assumed universality of project management theory;
(2) the lack of empirical studies of projects; and
(3) the lack of alternative representations of “projects” (Packendorff 1995).
Packendorff (1995) raises a pertinent point, throughout history much of the The Project
practitioner-authored PMO papers are not grounded in management science. Neither Management
are many academic papers, Kerzner (2003) and Rad and Levin (2007) have published
PMO articles without referencing or description of how primary data were collected
Office
or analysed.
As great varieties of PMO exists in organisations and typology setting may not be
complete, Jerbrant (2013) has taken a liberal definition of the PMO when understanding 297
how PMO managers deal with uncertainty and improvisation of multiple projects (Hobbs
and Aubry, 2008). Improvisation in a multi-project setting has found to be based on
creating “action spaces”. This involved moving away from the scientific and project
management concept of time constraints and rigid formal structures. Additionally there
are differences between how project managers and PMO managers approach
uncertainty. While the project manager exclude non critical matters in a reductionist
approach, the PMO manager take a holistic view widening the “action space” at
the programme level and formalising project level structure ( Jerbrant, 2013).
The research highlights that multiple approaches to a problem are practised and an
area for future research could be how the human cognition interacts with an emerging
social decision point.

5. Discussion
In this discussion we want to explore the significance of the historical development of
the PMO and the various perspectives that can be taken on it. In short, the PMO is
perceived as somewhat troublesome as it has become wired into the organisational
power structure in complex ways. What’s more, its functions, both perceived and
actual, are multiple and varied and this does not help with senior management
satisfaction or confidence levels. We see that PMOs have been studied by the scholarly
community but not much detail is known about them other than their various types or
forms. It is perhaps odd that there is not a large programme of research directed
towards the PMO as they are having a significant influence on the organisation at a
structural and strategic level. Because the PMO is so varied both in form and function
its performance in necessarily difficult to measure, and this impacts on how it manages
to justify and promote its value. Unfortunately, this situation creates many myths
associated with the PMO. These myths are about its power, capability and
implementation of practices that are based on substantial evidence.
A historical perspective of the PMO does show how its function and form has been
moulded by various environmental pressures over the years. Early on its function and
form was relatively clear. Then over time it has stepped in to shore up operational
structures, and even be the forerunner or prototype for them. More recently, and with
the prevalence of technology and the project management professional, it has become
less clear what a PMO does as it has in a way tried to do everything. And in a sense it
has had to justify (protect its staff) and therefore reinvent itself. It is also an
organisational structure that has been used by project management practitioners to
enhance their professional standing in terms of career progression and promotion.

5.1 The trouble with PMOs

A significant theme in PMO literature is the perceived failure of PMOs. Findings are
multiple and the catalyst for PMO change is driven largely by internal events and
tensions. Tensions arise from the necessity for the PMO to evolve in order to meet
IJMPB organisation requirements. The structures including the PMO is part of a political system
9,2 designed to manage and sustain projects over a period of time (Aubry et al., 2010a). It has
been suggested that the PMO is not a silo within organisations. The modern
organisations consider the PMO as a key aspect linking complex relationships of
strategy, projects and structures. Concepts of sociology are critical to the understanding
of contemporary PMOs (Aubry et al., 2007). It is apparent PMOs continually evolve in
298 order to fulfil their changing function as required by the organisations strategy.
Individual PMOs have been observed changing distinctively, often as a result of
inter-organisation political tensions (Aubry et al., 2008; Hobbs et al., 2008).

5.2 What PMOs are used for

Historically the use of PMOs has been observed with distinct functions initially for
running government schemes, which evolved into controlling cost and demonstrating
transparency, which evolved into a pragmatic way to manage non-operational work,
which evolved into benchmarking and best practice, to the PMO as a commodity.
As Hobbs et al. (2008) observed the change of PMOs inside organisations, it is clear the
use of PMOs across organisations has adapted to ensure relevancy with the wider
government administration and business conditions.
Organisational knowledge in PMOs is shared through a variety of formal and
informal mediums (Aubry et al., 2011). Tacit knowledge of the art of “how to” is shared
and further developed within PMOs through decentralised networks or groups of
individuals. Another key finding is that the PMO is integral to the power and politics of
an organisation (Aubry et al., 2011). Furthermore PMO managers believe they are
responsible for the custody of “lessons learnt” post project ( Julian, 2008).
Observations have been made of numerous types of PMOs including administrative
support, centres of excellence and full delivery teams (Hill, 2004; Hobbs and Aubry,
2008; Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006; Hurt and Thomas, 2009). The PMO also undergoes
regular change, and this change ensures the PMO continues to add value to the
organisation by enabling it to adapt to the changing environment (Hurt and
Thomas, 2009).
There is a complexity of interconnections in the PMOs intellectual capital. One
reason for the establishment of PMOs are to enhance stakeholder satisfaction (Turner
and Lee-Kelley, 2012). Senior management have significant dissatisfaction with
projects post the establishment of PMOs (Ward, 2013). This is somewhat
counterintuitive to the promise of a PMO.
There is however benefit of deploying a PMO and the associated function
conducting project reviews (Liu and Yetton, 2007). Liu and Yetton (2007) quantitative
research found that both utilising PMOs and conducting project reviews results in
enhanced project performance. The limitations of this research highlighted by Liu and
Yetton (2007) include construct validity threat due to differences in industry surveyed.
Findings may be effected by the practices of particular organisations, in this case
Liu and Yetton (2007) specifies high performing organisations. Lastly the data were
taken specifically from Australian construction and Information Systems industries,
this does not represent a cross-section of how all PMOs operate (Liu and Yetton, 2007).
Standardisation is a common theme found in PMO literature. Compliance with best
practice standards is considered to lead to project success and enhance project
performance (Dai and Wells, 2004; Toney and Powers, 1997).
Hill (2004) offers a mechanical approach to an organisational entity and defines
the basic PMO maturity level – “as the ability to provide a standard and repeatable
PM methodology for use across all projects”. It should be noted that compliance The Project
with a standard does not mean project success; it means conformation to group think Management
(Ward, 2013).
Suggested practices of the project management associations and non-peer-reviewed
Office
literature is often not supported by evidence of the academic community (O’Leary and
Williams, 2008). The initiation of Centres of Excellence standard practices, which is a
suggested practice replicated in PMO practitioner books does not enhance project 299
performance (O’Leary and Williams, 2008). Furthermore, no significant increase in
project success is connected to the presence of a PMO. What’s more, a negative opinion
of projects by senior management is linked to the presence of a PMO (Ward, 2013).
Further still, PMO driven methodology selection does not demonstrate a positive
outcome (O’Leary and Williams, 2008). It is top management support which is
considered to significantly correlated with project success (Zwikael, 2008).
Many practitioners believed that PMOs perform particular roles or functions which
attempt to standardise project management methodology, and 75 per cent of those
surveyed utilise the standardised practice regularly (Aubry and Hobbs, 2007).
Attempts to discover a standardised model of PMO has proved to be impossible due to
the many different functions and mandates within the very different organisations
(Aubry and Hobbs, 2007; Hobbs and Aubry, 2008). Currently it appears as though PMO
change is driven through the need to provide different PMO processes as specified by
the practitioner community. However, the academic community has found through a
scientific research approach that a great deal of these practices, promoted by the
practitioner community do not contribute positively.
PMOs are an organisational entity which regularly transitions, and an
organisational change management approach could provide a more optimal outcome
during such transitions (Aubry et al., 2010b). The PMO can be considered to be a
structure which forms part of the organisation’s political system (Aubry et al., 2009).
The practitioner literature is almost completely void of entertaining this socio-political
concept. Instead it enforces the concepts of “best practice” amongst other mechanical
means of championing project management. Ward (2013) found senior management are
less tolerant of perceived poor project performance when a PMO is in place. Potential
causes of this intolerance could be due to increased awareness. Alternatively negative
opinion of projects was the original catalyst for creation of a PMO (Ward, 2013).

5.3 Scientific study of PMOs

The results of Hobbs and Aubrys multi-year, multi-method research programme on
PMOs have been published as a book, The Project Management Office (PMO): A Quest
for Understanding.
The research attempts to provide a theoretical basis of PMOs, which can provide
pragmatic advice desired by the practitioner community.
The practitioner community has focused on the need for guidelines, best practice
and a standard on PMOs. Much of the existing literature on PMOs is published by
the practitioner community, which specify models often based on a limited number
of PMOs.
The research is still quite limited thus currently it is not possible to answer some
question of the practitioner community such as what is best practice for a PMO.
Observing the well-established organisational concept of contingency theory accepts
there is no one best way, it may be worthwhile for PMO practitioners to consider
contingency theory when attempting to standardise PMOs.
IJMPB However a number of scientific research methods have been applied in the search of
9,2 understanding PMOs. Hobbs and Aubry (2010) present empirical findings on matters
of the PMO previously not addressed.

5.4 On PMO typology

The practitioner community regularly discusses PMO models; often these models are
300 a very small sample of the types of PMOs observed (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). Early
research suggested it would probably be impossible to group PMO models into types
as significant structural differences exist (Aubry et al., 2008). Observations of PMO
types were analysed by the Pearson correlation coefficient and multiple regression
analysis, this typology may provide guidance as they are not strongly associated to
form prescriptive statements of PMOs (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010).
Type 1: a small percentage of the organisation’s projects and project managers.
Type 2: a small percentage of the organisation’s projects and a large percentage of
its project managers.
Type 3: a large percentage of the organisation’s projects and a small percentage of
its project managers.
Type 4: a large percentage of the organisation’s projects and a large percentage of its
project managers (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010).

5.5 On PMO performance

Current literature on project management performance is narrow in view and limited to
financial terms, it does not provide a theoretical foundation for PMO performance (Hobbs
and Aubry, 2010). Hobbs and Aubry (2010) propose adapting Quinn and Rohrbaughs
competing values framework to understand PMO performance. The competing values
approach was developed from a research programme, which aimed to evaluate public
sector performance. The public sector is highly complex and it is pertinent to make best
possible use of public funds in addressing conflicting priorities (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010).
Hobbs and Aubry (2010) found the strongest factors in PMO performance are:
(1) having competent staff whose expertise is recognised by the organisation;
(2) being embedded and engaged by the organisation; and
(3) advertising the PMOs mission.
The key theme of these factors is perception of the PMOs purpose, its staff and their
interactions with the organisation.

5.6 On PMO myths

Hobbs and Aubry (2010) observe PMO myths have circulated since at least the
mid-2000s. Two consistently reoccurring myths of PMOs include that there is one best
practice for PMOs, this best practice had not been identified but is widely believed to
exist (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). Second and more recently it is often said that PMOs are
varied and regularly change, with the change they consistently in linear fashion
become more mature. While it has been observed PMOs regularly change no evidence
is available which confirms they become more mature (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010).
These myths perhaps were reinforced by the practitioner literature of PMOs such as
Hill (2004), which often reference four or five PMO types, insinuating each type is a
more mature version of the previous. However the limitation of this practitioner
literature is often not evidence based (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). Hobbs and Aubry
(2010) specify these observations lack scientific process. As these are questions, which The Project
receive some attention from the practitioner community albeit without scientific rigour, Management
they may benefit from future research.
Office
5.7 PMO practitioner practices
Generally there are many opinions and guides providing solutions to practices some
say PMOs must fulfil. The PMBoK Guide fifth edition includes almost a page and a half 301
dedicated to the PMO. Listed are three types of PMO structures; being supportive,
controlling and directive (Project Management Institute, 2013). The research on PMOs
show many PMO typologies (Hobbs and Aubry, 2008). It has been said that it may be
impossible to categorise all PMOs as they are vast (Hobbs and Aubry, 2008). Reducing
PMO typologies to three excludes vast diversity of PMOs. Additionally six functions
are briefly described in the Project Management Institute (2013) which is less than the
27 distinct functions identified (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). However it is worthy to note
some of these functions, namely, coaching and mentoring by the PMO has been found
to not correlate to enhanced project performance (Hobbs and Aubry, 2010). Further the
function of identifying and developing “best practice” may also prove fruitless, as
currently not enough research has been undertaken to establish “best practice” (Hobbs
and Aubry, 2010). With so many contradictions of the PMO concept contained within
the PMBoK Guide and recent available PMO literature, it raises the question of where
do the practitioner community and the Project Management Institute get their ideas
about what a PMO should do and what determines its best practices?
Since the 1990s popular business text books focusing on the PMO have rapidly
increased in publication. In developing many of these books the authors do not appear
to base their findings on a scientific research approach. Often these publications mimic
each other, thus reinforcing their ideas and presenting to the audience these opinions as
fact. The publication of opinions without scientific basis in the field of science, medicine
or law would not be tolerated, and it is equally important for justification to be
presented in the management field.

5.8 Where PMOs get ideas of best practice from

When PMOs are looking for practices or functions they generally describe a search for
“best practice”. While “best practice” in PMOs has been observed as requiring
significantly more research in order to establish Hobbs and Aubry (2010), the current
“best practices” could be considered to be a list of functions that have been selected due
to particular traits (Whitty, 2011). “Best practices” as considered by the practitioner
community are found in the plethora of business books featuring PMOs, blogs, and
certification and documentation of the professional associations as well as UK’s Office
of Government Commerce. The Australian Institute of Project Management offers a
PMO certification Australian Institute of Project Management (2014), and the Office of
Government Commerce offer P3O certification Office of Government Commerce (2014).
Regularly the Capability Maturity Model Integration programme is adapted to process
improvement of PMOs (Crawford, 2006). And the British organisation Axelos is aiming
to be the worlds “Best Management Practice” advisor (AXELOS, 2014).
Themes of PMO “best practice” are apparent in the conversations with members of
professional associations and practitioners in the workplace setting. Anecdotally while
conducting an exploratory stage of this study it was found that PMO practitioners refer
to anybody who writes a book either commercial or professional association as the
IJMPB academic community. The books, which are being read by the practitioner community,
9,2 are generally the most basic, solutions focused. There appears to be no understanding
of the difference between scientific research of the management field and a business
book. Very few project managers ever read peer-reviewed research papers.
Practitioners say they are following best practice and this practice comes from
business books and professional association guides.
302
5.9 Is best practice necessary?
Traditionally project managers have developed from the technical realm, originally
engineering and since the mid-1990s many from Information Technology (IT). In the
case of IT many of these staff come from the background of not actually creating a new
product, often they configure or administer packages. Operating systems such as
Microsoft Windows, or network devices such as Cisco IOS are often the domain of such
highly skilled technical staff. The administration of these devices can be considered a
“best practice” both these vendors have their own certifications at various levels. While
working with a particular vendors product there may be one way or a limited amount
of ways of administering the product. Working with people or PMOs adds tremendous
variability; some would say complexity, which makes “best practice” an inappropriate
term. Similarly to IT, engineers no longer operate solely in the research and design
capability. Often engineers focus on compliance with standards, thus “best practice”
also becomes one of the engineers “constants” and when applying compliance mindset
to PMO practice staff with an engineering background seeks standards or “best
practice” in a field which does not have “best practice”.

6. Concluding remarks
This historical perspective, perhaps even one could say in Foucauldian terms
“an archaeological review of the PMO”, has revealed how the form and use of the
structure we now call the PMO has evolved and adapted over time. Initially it was a very
pragmatic and transparent way of managing non-operational work. Then it took on the
responsibility of managing the human resources associated with this type of work.
It acted as a central repository for tools and methodologies that could be applied to this
non-operational work, and claimed in many instances that these tools and methodologies
were “best”, although there is very little if any evidence to show that they are.
Nevertheless, an organisational unit that is in charge of or responsible for these “best
practices” gains a certain power from this, and with this power comes the ability to shape
its environment for its own ends, and ultimately the ends of those who are involved in it.
Finally the PMO became an asset, a commodity to be traded upon and a badge to be
worn to attain certain privileges, such as the ability to tender for government contracts or
hold a special office within the project community. But as we have seen through the
discussion there are problems with this situation. The PMO could perhaps be seen as
inauthentic, in that they are not actually providing pragmatic ways of managing
non-operational work anymore. They are more concerned with the appearance of “best
practice” in a general sense, rather than the individual pragmatic practices that would be
beneficial to the individual or organisation.
This paper contributes to the academic discourse by taking a longitudinal view of
discovering where PMOs have come from and how they have adapted to their
environment over two centuries; from pragmatic origins, to facilitation of government
initiatives, to academic interest in evidence-based practice. The contribution to the
professional literature by this paper includes the rediscovery of rarely circulated literature The Project
on the human dimension of PMO practices. Furthermore, this paper highlights in the Management
contemporary literature and that not all PMO practices which are assumed to be “best
practice” make a valid return on their claim. This last point is especially important to the
Office
practitioner community to consider when implementing PMO practice.
This literature review is limited by the inherent methodology of a literature review
being to collate and review existing knowledge rather than create new. Second as this 303
literature review broadly considers PMO literature it does not intend to provide a deep
analysis of specific PMO practices, but rather instead focusing on the range of prior
knowledge, which closely examines practice. There is opportunity for further research
on PMO practice as much of the existing knowledge could be classified as either
normative or professional and has yet to be tested by an objective scientific process.
PMO research could be enriched by examination with an anthropological research
method as deep understanding of the human interactions would provide new
knowledge, which currently is under represented in the literature and would provide
pragmatic outcomes for the practitioner community.

References
Argyris, C. (1957), Personality and Organization: The Conflict between System and the Individual,
Harper, New York, NY.
Arnette, B. Jr (1973), “Application of behavioral science theories within the army project
management office”, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Aubry, M. and Hobbs, B. (2007), “A multi-phase research program investigating project
management offices (PMOS): the results of phase 1”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 74-86.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2007), “A new framework for understanding
organisational project management through the PMO”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 328-336.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2008), “Organisational project management: an historical
approach to the study of PMOs”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 38-43.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D. (2009), “The contribution of the project management office
to organisational performance”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 141-148.
Aubry, M., Müller, R. and Glückler, J. (2011), “Exploring PMOs through community of practice
theory”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 42-56.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Müller, R. and Blomquist, T. (2010a), “Identifying forces driving PMO
changes”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 30-45.
Aubry, M., Müller, R., Hobbs, B. and Blomquist, T. (2010b), “Project management offices in
transition”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 766-778.
Australian Institute of Project Management (2014), “Project managed organisation (PMO)
accreditation”, available at: www.aipm.com.au/AIPM/CERTIFICATION/PMO/3G/P/pmo_
award_information.aspx?hkey¼3bcff252-61b0-4fbc-89ef-dadd91c95272%3E (accessed
22 May).
AXELOS (2014), “About AXELOS”, available at: www.axelos.com/About-Us/%3E (accessed 22 May).
Barker, R.G. and Gump, P.V. (1964), Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student
Behavior, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
IJMPB Barth, F. (1995), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference,
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
9,2
Bell, B. (1805), “B. Bell’s essays on agriculture”, The British Critic, Vols 25-26 No. 1, pp. 422-427.
Binder, J. (2007), Global Project Management, Gower, Aldershot.
Block, T. and Frame, J.D. (1998), The Project Office: A Key to Managing Projects Effectively, Crisp
Publications, Menlo Park, CA.
304 Bodunde-Badiru, A. (1996), Project Management in Manufacturing and High Technology Operations,
2 ed., John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Cady, F., Pak, J. and Tabora, R. (1988), “Database management applications in forestry research:
an international workshop”, Proceedings of the Database Management Applications in
Forestry Research: An International Workshop Bib, Orton IICA/CATIE, Turrialba.
Chua, T.-E. and Scura, L.F. (1992), “Integrative framework and methods for coastal area
management”, Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Coastal Zone Planning and
Management in ASEAN: Lessons Learned, Bandar Seri Begawan, 28-30 April.
Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R. (1998), Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and
Practices, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Cleland, D. and Ireland, L. (1999), Project Manager’s Portable Handbook, McGraw-Hill, Columbus,
OH.
Cook, D., Mulrow, C. and Haynes, B. (1997), “Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for
clinical decisions”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 376-380.
Cooksey, J.K. (1976), “Interpersonal strategies in transition”, Defense Technical Acquisition
University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Crawford, L. (2006), “Developing organizational project management capability: theory and
practice”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 74-97.
Dai, C. (2001), “The role of the project management office in achieving project success”,
The George Washington University.
Dai, C.X. and Wells, W. (2004), “An exploration of project management office features and their
relationship to project performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22
No. 7, pp. 523-532.
Davis, G. (1976), “The dilemma of uncertainties associated with cost estimating in the project
management office”, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
deGuzman, M. (1999), The Project Management Office: Gaining the Competitive Edge, Acquisition
University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Dinsmore, P. (1999), Winning in Business with Enterprise Project Management, AMACOM,
New York, NY.
Doherty, L. (2000), The McClellan Legacy, Sterling House Pub, New York, NY.
Dube, L. (1998), “Teams in packaged software development”, Information Technology & People,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 36-61.
Ekanayake, R., Navaratne, W.M.U. and Groenfeldt, D. (1990), “A rapid-assessment survey
of the irrigation component of the Anuradhapura Dry-Zone Agriculture Project (ADZAP)”,
IWMI, No. 16, available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/iwtworppr/h006328.htm
Engwall, M. (1995), Jakten på det effektiva projektet (In Search of the Effective Project: On Project
Management in Business and Public Administration), Thomson Fakta AB, Stockholm.
Fleischman, R. and Marquette, P. (1986), “The origins of public budgeting: municipal reformers
during the progressive era”, Public Budgeting & Finance, Vol. 6 No. 1.
Gaddis, P. (1959), “The project manager”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 13, pp. 89-97.
Gilmore, H. and Schwartz, H. (1986), Integrated Product Testing and Evaluation: A System The Project
Approach to Improve Reliability and Quality, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Management
Great Britain Parliment House of Commons (1971), “Papers by command”, HMSO, London. Office
Green, F. Jr (1975), “The project management office interface with the news media”, Defense
Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Hallgren, M., Nilsson, A. and Blomquist, T. (2012), “Relevance lost! A critical review of project
management standardisation”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 305
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 457-485.
Herzberg, F. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Hill, G. (2004), “Evolving the project management office: a competency continuum”, Information
Systems Management, Fall.
Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M. (2008), “An empirically grounded search for a typology of project
management offices”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. S1, pp. S69-S82.
Hobbs, B. and Aubry, M. (2010), The Project Management Office (PMO): A Quest for
Understanding, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Hobbs, B., Aubry, M. and Thuillier, D. (2008), “The project management office as an
organisational innovation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 547-555.
Hodder, C.A. (1974), “The project management team: a case study of internal human relations”,
Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2006), Making Projects Critical, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Hurt, M. and Thomas, J.L. (2009), “Building value through sustainable project management
offices”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 55-72.
Indonesia Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Project Management Office (1988), “Fisheries
Infrastructure Sector Project”, Feasibility Study Province East Java: Sub Project, PPI-
Muncar, RMCG, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Jerbrant, A. (2013), “Managing project portfolios: balancing flexibility and structure by
improvising”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 152-172.
Johnson, M.A., Joyner, T.G. and Martin, R.J. Jr (2002), “Process-driven project management office
implementation”, AACE International Transactions.
Julian, J. (2008), “How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and
continuous improvement”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 43-58.
Kerzner, H. (1979), Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and
Controlling, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Kerzner, H. (1998), In Search of Excellence in Project Management: Successful Practices in High
Performance Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Kerzner, H. (2000a), Applied Project Management: Best Practices on Implementation, John Wiley &
Sons Incorporated, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Kerzner, H. (2000b), Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and
Controlling, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Kerzner, H. (2003), “Strategic planning for a project office”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2.
Kilroe, E. (1913), Saint Tammany and the Origin of the Society of Tammany, or Columbian Order
in the City of New York.
Larman, C. and Basili, V. (2003), “Iterative and incremental development: a brief history”, IEEE
Computer, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 47-56.
IJMPB Laurgaard, O. (1914), Final Report of the Construction: Tumalo Irrigation Project, to the Desert
Land Board, State of Oregon, Salem, OR.
9,2
Lin, K. (2005), “Cultural traditions and the Scandinavian social policy model”, Social Policy &
Administration, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 723-739.
Liu, L. and Yetton, P. (2007), “The contingent effects on project performance of conducting project
reviews and deploying project management offices”, IEEE Transactions On Engineering
306 Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 789-799.
McCarl, J. (1926), Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, GA Office, US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
McKenna, T. and Whitty, J. (2012), “Reconceptualising project management methodologies for a
post-postmodern era”, PMoz: Proceedings of the PMoz PMI, Melbourne.
Massem, M.C. (1973), “Approaches for coping with the problem of staffing a project management
office”, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T. and Hodgson, D. (2006), “From projectification
to programmification”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8,
pp. 663-674.
Middendorp, H., Thompson, P. and Pomeroy, R. (1999), Sustainable Inland Fisheries Management
in Bangladesh, Vol. 58, International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management,
Makati.
Morris, P. and Hough, G. (1987), The Anatomy of Major Projects: Study of the Reality of Project
Management, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Office of Government Commerce (2014), “About P30”, available at: www.p3o-officialsite.com/
AboutP3O/AboutP3O.aspx%3E (accessed 22 May).
O’Leary, T. and Williams, T. (2008), “Making a difference? Evaluating an innovative approach to
the project management centre of excellence in a UK government department”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 556-565.
Packendorff, J. (1995), “Inquiring into the temporary organisation: new directions for project
management research”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 319-333.
Parise, S., Cross, R. and Davenport, T. (2006), “Strategies for preventing a knowledge-loss crisis”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 31-38.
Project Management Institute (1996), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
1st ed., Vol. 1, PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
Project Management Institute (2000), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
2nd ed., Vol. 2, PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
Project Management Institute (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
3rd ed., Vol. 3, PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
Project Management Institute (2008), A Guide to the Project Managment Body of Knowledge,
4th ed., PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
Project Management Institute (2011), IBM: Keys to Building a Succesful Enterprise Project
Management Office, PMI, available at: www-304.ibm.com/easyaccess3/fileserve?
contentid¼104807 (accessed 10 March 2015).
Project Management Institute (2013), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th
ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Public Work and Government Services Canada (1977), “Optimum”, BoM Consulting, Public
Works and Government Services Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.
Rad, P. (2001), “Is your organization a candidate for project management office (PMO)?”, AACE
International Transactions.
Rad, P. and Levin, G. (2002), The Advanced Project Management Office: A Comprehensive Look at The Project
Function and Implementation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Management
Rad, P. and Levin, G. (2007), “Project management sophistication and EPMO”, AACE Office
International Transactions.
Roetzler, C.A. (1994), “Team performance in the army acquisition program office”, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
Root, D. (2006), “The practice of project management office (PMO) concept within the German 307
architect, engineer, contractor (AEC) sector”, Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 1.
Santos, J., daSilviera, W. and Pereira, C. (2008), Project Management Office (PMO) – Principles in
Practice, ACEE International Transactions.
Schmidt, M.E. (1975), “ADP support for the army project management office”, Defense
Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Slichter, C. (1905), Observations on the Ground Waters of Rio Grande Valley, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Smith, J.S. (1973), “The effect of credibility gaps within the project management office”, Defense
Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Spurgeon, D. (1995), Water, a Looming Crisis, International Rice Research Institute, Laguna.
Stuckenbruck, L. (1981), The Implementation of Project Management: The Professional’s
Handbook, PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
Toney and Powers (1997), “Best practices of project management group in large
functional organizations: results of the Fortune 500 project management benchmarking
study”, PMI.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3.
Turner, N. and Lee-Kelley, L. (2012), “ ‘Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: an illustrative
case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics”, Management Learning,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 179-196.
University of the Philippines (1985), “Philippine Journal of Public Administration”, Philippine
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 29 No. 3, p. 172.
US Congress (1965), “Antarctica Report – 1965: hearing, 89-1”, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 12 April-15 June.
US Congress Committee on Appropriations (1969), “Department of transportation”, US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
US Congress Committee on Indian Affairs (1919), “Indians of the United States: Hearings”, US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
US Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1949), “Investigation into the United States
Atomic Energy Project: appendixes to hearing before the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy”, Congress of the United States, Eighty-first Congress, First Session, Part 16, in
Eighty-first Congress: Proceedings of the Eighty-first Congress, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
US Division of the Federal Register (1965), The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of
America, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
US Government Accountability Office (2015), “About GAO”, US Government Accountability
Office, available at: www.gao.gov/about/index.html%3E (accessed 10 March 2015).
IJMPB US Housing Authority (1939), Bulletin on Policy and Procedure, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
9,2
US Navy Civil Engineer Corps (1957), US Navy Civil Engineer Corps Bulletin, US Navy,
Washington, DC.
Walker, T. (1990), Innovative Agricultural Extension for Women: A Case Study in Cameroon,
World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
308 Ward, J. (2013), “The role of project management offices (PMOs) in IS project success and
management satisfaction”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 316-336.
Wells, W. (1999), “From the editor”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 4-5.
Whitty, S.J. (2005), “A memetic paradigm of project management”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 575-583.
Whitty, S.J. (2010), “Project management artefacts and the emotions they evoke”, International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 22-45.
Whitty, S.J. (2011), “On a new philosophy of project management: an investigation into the
prevalence of modern project management by means of an evolutionary framework”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 524-533.
Wideman, M. (1987), Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
Wilbur, R. and Mead, E. (1933), The Construction of Hoover Dam: Preliminary Investigations,
Design of Dam, and Progress of Construction, States Government Publishing Office,
Washington, DC.
World Bank Staff (1997), The World Bank and the Environment: Environment Matters and the
World Bank, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
Zwikael, O. (2008), “Top management involvement in project management: exclusive support
practices for different project scenarios”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 387-403.

About the authors

Eric John Darling is a Project Manager with more than 15 years experience in developing,
planning and delivering projects in air traffic control, telecommunications, information
technology and energy transmission and distribution. Eric has a strong history in the commercial
sector of improving organisational delivery of projects through portfolio, programme and project
management. Eric holds a Master of Project Management from the University of Sydney and is
an AIPM Certified Practicing Project Director. Currently Eric is undertaking a PhD in Project
Management at the University of Southern Queensland. Eric John Darling is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Associate Professor Stephen Jonathan Whitty is a Senior Lecturer in Project Management at
the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. His role includes leading project management
research, and directing postgraduate project management teaching programmes for which he has
been recognised nationally for his contributions to developing postgraduate learning outcomes.
His unique evolutionary approach to project management research considers all matters
pertaining to projects and project management and examines them against the framework of
evolution by natural, social, cultural and memetic section. He also contributes to the literature on
complexity and philosophy in project management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]