Do you have a person dedicated to managing your project management?

John, that role is usually reserved for larger firms. I have worked at consulting organizations that ran everything to at least CMMi level 3 and we had a separate organization that audited each project every three months. Additionally, there were monthly local level meetings to review status. As you can imagine, this was time consuming and expensive.

For smaller firms I find that establishing a methodology that is all encompassing but flexible and then tailoring it to each situation is best. Peer reviews can substitute for that dedicated person until you are large enough to support the extra overhead.

The key is to have the discipline to follow the methodology and not go ad hoc as the project goes forward.

Barry’s answer is very accurate. What I would add is looking at this question from a different angle. Why would you have someone dedicated to managing your PM? Do not view it as someone dedicated to managing your PM. View it as someone dedicated to managing the delivery of your company’s investments. Establishing a PMO, which may only be a person or two for a small firm, to manage the delivery, consistency, and quality of the company’s investments is well worth the cost (which shouldn’t be enormous). View your projects as investments in the future of the company or your client. Most firms, large or small, cannot afford a project to go over budget. It does not matter if the project is internally funded (capex or opex) or funded as part of a customer contract. Having a person or team providing oversight, governance, consistency and quality will more than pay for itself if just one project is kept from going red.

I have established PMOs for large and small firms. One of the first principals I always establish is that the PMO is there to ensure successful project delivery of the investments of company. All PMOs require flexibility, must scale to the size of the organization, and a key is to follow the policies and procedures established.

Hi John,
It is a good question, indeed. This question comes to many people’s mind.

The answer is "Yes as well as No". Let me explain both the situations.

Situation1:

NO, you DON'T need a dedicated person managing your project management under the following circumstances.

1.If your organization is NOT Project-based ( i.e. the main revenue is not due to project services).

2.If your organization is Function-based or Weak matrix with more focus on continuously manufacturing a few products that sell well on mass scale and you hardly do any project ( say, New Product Development) in a year.

3.If your organization is research-oriented with long-term targets/goals for new discoveries, where "on time-within budget" completion takes a beat as may researchers say a new discovery can not be found within a pre-set time-limit or budget.

In such scenarios, the project is generally not given importance it deserves ( due to various reasons by the management) and hence a dedicated resource ,Project Manager, seems redundant.

Situation 2:

YES, you DO need a dedicated person managing your project management under the following circumstances.

1.If your organization is Project-based ( i.e. the main source of revenue is due to project services).

2.If your organization is Balanced matrix or Strong matrix or Projectized with more focus on managing many external contracts / projects like real estate projects, infrastructure projects ( power plants, substations, shopping malls, movie projects etc)simultaneously in a year.

3.If your organization is in need of completing a strategically important single project "on time-within budget" without compromising on quality or scope.

4.If the Owner or Buyer has asked for single point-of contact from the Vendor side for the project awarded by the Owner under a contract, then a Project manager is needed to be appointed and his or her cost is generally budgeted into the contract price before quoting to the Owner.

In such scenarios, the completion of a project "on time-within budget" is given much importance due to contractual conditions, and hence a dedicated resource, Project Manager, is a necessity.

Nevertheless, a dedicated Project Manager ( or project lead) is very much needed for the following works, for which no one else will take responsibility ( and no one else can be held responsible in the absence of a PM) when things go wrong.

1.Communication management
2.Integration management
3.Setting priorities, Trade-offs, etc
4.Risk Management
5.Documentation & lessons-learned,etc

In short, a Project without a Project Manager is akin to a Ship without a Captain. Both may reach some destination, but not necessarily the intended destination in the absence of a PM.

Hope this helps.

Ari

My answer will be "It depends". If the project has kicked off, I would have a dedicated PM. Once it is transitioned to support, I would have 1 PM share multiple resources to support various projects. Some cases, a huge project will have several PMs to manage "chunks" of the project.