Project Management Office

PAPERS

Transformations: Direct and

Moderating Effects That Enhance
Performance and Maturity
Monique Aubry, School of Business and Management, Université du Québec à Montréal,
Montreal, Canada

ABSTRACT ■ INTRODUCTION ■

S
This article aims at understanding organiza- ince the seminal paper by Lundin and Söderholm (1995), temporary
tional change through the study of project organization theory has gained widespread attention (see also Lundin
management office (PMO) transformations. et al., 2015). Projects are defined as temporary endeavors (e.g., Lundin
This article suggests that performance result- & Söderholm, 1995). They are expected to be transitory (Jacobsson,
ing from a PMO transformation is moder- Burström, & Wilson, 2013). Sometimes it can be unclear whether an entity
ated by the organizational context, change dealing with the management of multiple projects is part of the permanent
management, and by changes in coordina- organization or not. This is the case for project management offices (PMOs). A
tion mechanisms—control or service ori- temporary organization can be defined as having an “ex-ante-determined task
entation. This exploratory study adopted a that has a predetermined termination point” (Janowicz-Panjaitan, Cambré,
quantitative methodology involving a sam- & Kenis, 2009, p. 2). Time and duration are of prime importance when
ple of 184 PMO changes. It confirms the considering the temporary nature of these entities. Time is actually one aspect
multifaceted nature of the context involved used by de Bakker (2010) to classify the literature on temporary organizational
in a PMO transformation. External events forms. If we consider such organizational entities as PMOs, while some may
play a key role in triggering change and have an ex-ante-determined duration marked by a clear termination point,
improving performance. Key findings sug- they are nonetheless temporary in nature. PMOs dedicated to large programs or
gest that increasing the PMO’s supportive projects have a termination date. For example, Aubry, Richer, Lavoie-Tremblay,
role improves project performance, busi- and Cyr (2011) describe a PMO dedicated to a major transformation project;
ness performance, and project management at the project’s end, the PMO is expected to close, despite the consequences
maturity. Conversely, increasing the PMO’s of sunk knowledge such as loss of capabilities in project management. Other
control role does not improve performance. PMOs are created without any predetermined termination date. For example,
This study’s major contribution is to provide PMOs dedicated to supporting decision making about project portfolios
some empirical evidence concerning organi- (PPMOs) may lack a predetermined termination date, if their project portfolios
zational change management. are representing an ongoing business activity (Khalili-Damghani & Madjid,
2014; Korhonen Laine, & Martinsuo 2014; Martinsuo & Killen, 2014; Sicotte,
KEYWORDS: organizational change; Drouin, & Delerue, 2014; Teller, 2013; Teller, Kock, & Gemünden, 2014; Unger,
project management office; supportive Gemünden, & Aubry, 2012).
role; controlling role; performance; However, the short life of many PMOs makes them good candidates
hierarchical logistic statistics for being considered a temporary form of organization. As pointed out by
Jacobsson et al. (2013) in a research note, transition and action are the core
of the temporary organization as proposed initially in Lundin and Söderholm
(1995), based on the behavioral theory of the firm (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963).
The average life cycle of a PMO is approximately 2 years, and for 15%, 5 years
and more (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007; Interthink Consulting, 2002). Accordingly,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 5, 19–45 some researchers have suggested that this particular entity undergoes contin-
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute uous transition between different stages (Aubry, Hobbs, Müller, & Blomquist,
Published online in Wiley Online Library 2011; Hurt & Thomas, 2009; Pellegrinelli & Garagna, 2009). Therefore, PMOs
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21522 can be considered as pseudo-temporary organizations. Recent research on

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 19

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

project management improvement ini- tive of this article is to shed light on transitions in an evolutionary theory
tiatives also documents the volatility how the PMO’s controlling and support- approach (Bijker, 1989; Miner, 1994).
of PMOs (Fernandes, Ward, & Araújo, ive roles influence performance in the The same process was further devel-
2014). particular context of PMOs undergo- oped and tested in 17 case studies,
Given the wide variety of mandates ing change. Thus, the research question and subsequently validated through a
and structures, the PMO is loosely can be framed as follows: “How do the quantitative approach involving a sam-
defined as an organizational entity PMO’s controlling and supportive roles ple of 184 survey respondents (Aubry,
assigned a variety of roles or functions affect performance and maturity in the Hobbs, Müller, et  al., 2011). The pres-
in executing the coordinated manage- context of PMO transformation?” ent research follows the same process
ment of projects under its domain. It The article is structured as follows. approach. The basic assumption is that
can also be defined using the three The next section reviews background a certain number of conditions exists
components of the descriptive model information concerning two relevant and leads to a PMO transformation;
developed by Hobbs and Aubry (2010): themes: the coordination mechanisms when this happens, some contingencies
organizational context, structural char- used in changing environments and the moderate the relationship between con-
acteristics, and functions. This model PMO transformation process. It then ditions and impacts.
has been empirically validated using describes the quantitative methodology A major finding of previous research
500 single PMO descriptions. used, including the strategy for data col- is to have described the process by
While the activities that PMOs per- lection and analysis, statistical methods which the PMO transitions from one
form vary according to their mandates, for correlation and regression analyses, stage to the other. The temporary nature
all of them generally work on projec- and the research framework. The results of PMOs was then explained by this
tized activities spread across the orga- are presented in the subsequent sec- process model built on 17 case studies
nization within a variety of time frames. tion. Finally, the article concludes with and validated through 184 answers to
Most PMOs comprise the core of project a discussion of the major findings. a questionnaire. Here, the temporary
networks and transcend the boundaries nature of the PMO refers to the dura-
of functional or business units (Aubry, Background tion of a specific state of the entity as it
Müller, & Glückler, 2012; Müller, Glück- This paper is part of a research pro- occurs in reality and not as predefined,
ler, & Aubry, 2013; Müller, Glückler, gram dedicated to understanding the as suggested in the definition offered
Aubry, & Jingting, 2013). Coordination coordination mechanisms involved in by Janowicz-Panjaitan et  al. (2009): “A
mechanisms in such pseudo-temporary managing multiple projects, one being temporary organization (TO) forms for
organizations can be quite challeng- the PMO. In this program, the PMO the purpose of accomplishing an ex
ing (Bengtsson, Müllern, Söderholm, has served as an entry point for study- ante-determined task that has a pre-
& Wahlin, 2007). On the one hand, ing organizations facing the challenges determined termination point” (p.  2).
PMOs are asked to monitor and con- of managing multiple projects. Based While this definition aptly applies to
trol projects or project portfolios that on Van de Ven and Poole’s framework projects and programs, it does not
respect the scope, budget, and sched- (2005), the PMO has been explored as account for the highly impermanent
ule. The PMO project performance a “thing” and as a process alternat- components of the organization’s life
monitoring and control functions are ing between both variance and process (Weick, 2009).
the most important (Hobbs & Aubry, methods (Aubry, 2013). The objective of this article is to
2010). On the other hand, PMOs are take the analysis a step further by more
also expected to provide project man- The Project Management Office specifically exploring the impact of the
agement services (Huemann, Turner, & and the Transformation Process transition: Did the transition produce
Keegan, 2004) with a genuine commit- Hobbs, Aubry, and Thuillier (2008) the expected results? In other words,
ment to contributing through coaching have proposed a generic conceptual will the changes improve performance?
and dynamic situated learning activities framework to study the PMO as an Building on the transition process
related to project management. In this organizational innovation where the model, this research aims to explore
article, we have identified the former pattern of transforming conditions is the relationship between the condi-
role as controlling and the latter as sup- repeated continuously, and where the tions that lead to a PMO change (in
portive. The concept of role is a useful impacts at one stage become the con- particular the issues) and the outcomes
approach to systematizing the different ditions for the next stage. This pattern of these changes, in other words, the
management approaches (e.g., Unger was first revealed by grounded theory resulting performance. This article is
et  al., 2012). These two roles can be coding used in in-depth case studies based on the assumption that changes
considered two different approaches to (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Changes in are undertaken to improve perfor-
coordination mechanisms. The objec- PMOs have been explained through mance in some way.

20 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Coordination Mechanisms in Changing 4. Virtualizing: complex context and pertains more specifically to the PMO
Environments ambiguous label function of monitoring and controlling
As suggested by Mintzberg (1979), orga- project performance when sequencing
nizations, whether temporary or not, Sequencing refers to well-defined is possible. By contrast, the manage-
apply a division of labor that requires activities and linear-type interdepen- ment of organizational learning falls
coordination. However, organizations dencies. In this simple case, standards more properly within the supportive
are much more than their coordina- and task separation involve clear time role. As noted, some activities natu-
tion mechanisms. Above all, they are schedules. Monitoring and control rally fit better in a controlling role or
social units established to achieve goals can easily be applied. However, in all a supportive role; however, depending
(Blau & Scott, 2003). In formal orga- three of the other situations, monitor- on the management philosophy, the
nizations, authority and coordination ing and control activities do not suf- same PMO function can be carried out
mechanisms are more likely to follow fice to describe the interaction among using either a controlling or supportive
a top-down bureaucratic hierarchy, the various stakeholders. Task forcing approach.
as described in Mintzberg’s configu- requires expertise and commitment Interestingly, recent researchers
rations of mechanist bureaucracy and that demands negotiation and mutual have explored PMO roles in terms of
divisional structure (Mintzberg, 1979). adjustment among the partners. Net- their discriminating impact on success
In project-oriented organizations, the working refers to more complex con- or performance.
management of multiple, concurrent texts and system dependencies between
projects tend to form networks of diffuse spatially separated activities that 1. Unger et al. (2012) analyzed 278 project
authority and diversified coordination require subsequent integration. Multi- portfolios to determine their impact
mechanisms (Bengtsson et  al., 2007). ple interfaces need to be coordinated in on portfolio management and success.
As Pettigrew and colleagues (Pettigrew, working toward a common goal. Finally, From the three roles identified, the
2003) explain, innovative forms of virtualizing stresses the need for inte- PMO coordinator role and the PMO
organization (including project-based) gration in a more diverse context to an controller role were shown to improve
do not replace the hierarchy, but add even greater degree. In short, coordina- portfolio success, while the PMO sup-
to it, resulting in a blend of multiple tion mechanisms vary depending on the porter role had an impact on individual
authorities and coordination mecha- complexity of the circumstances and the project success.
nisms (Aubry, 2011) or strong matrix clarity of what has to be done. Coor- 2. Aubry and colleagues (2012) based
organizations (Artto, Kulvik, Poskela, & dination mechanisms are much more their research on four multiple PMO
Turkulainen, 2011). Bengtsson and col- complex than these four pure types case studies in which they focused on
leagues (2007) argued that organization and may coexist in a single organiza- the relationships between PMOs. They
is a matter of coordination, taken in tion. However, this framework provides also identified three complementary
the broad sense of mixed and compre- a good starting point for understand- roles: controlling, serving, and part-
hensive phenomena: “[…] organizing ing these mechanisms in project-based nering. Based on network and com-
and hence coordination needs to be organizations. munity of practice theories, they found
perceived of as a constructing process” These four types (sequencing, task that very few partnering relationships
(p. 37). They bring together two major forcing, networking, and virtualizing) existed among PMOs, and most were
dimensions involved in understand- can be seen as two complementary the controlling type. They proposed
ing the construction process of these and sometimes combined coordina- that for successful innovation to occur,
coordination mechanisms: time and tion mechanisms forming a controlling– more partnering relationships should
spatial dimensions. Based on empirical supportive couple. Control applies more be developed (Aubry, Müller, & Glück-
data gathered from four detailed case strictly to sequencing-type activities, ler, 2012; Müller et  al., 2013; Müller,
studies, they suggested a framework for whereas supportive applies to the three Glückler, Aubry, et al., 2013).
classifying the coordination principles others. This way of classifying coordina- 3. Artto et al. (2011) concluded that PMOs
underlying activities (Bengtsson et  al., tion mechanisms according to two basic should develop their integrative role
2007, p. 40): roles is useful in the study of PMOs. in managing front-end innovation
projects. Their results are founded on
1. Sequencing: simple context and clear PMO Roles a framework derived from organiza-
label Hobbs and Aubry (2010) proposed a tional design literature and manage-
2. Task forcing: simple context and descriptive model of the PMO, with ment control theory. They identified
ambiguous label heightened functions classified as play- four types of control levers and their
3. Networking: complex context and clear ing primarily a controlling or supportive specific control mechanisms, which
label role. For example, the controlling role they then used to describe and analyze

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 21

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

four case studies. They found a wide to as a threefold component: project identify different sets of variables and
variety of integrative organizational management performance, business then to propose a research framework to
arrangements other than PMOs. They performance, and project management explore the impact of two different PMO
contrasted these arrangements with maturity. First, project management roles—support and control—on the
the more formal PMO arrangement performance refers to the classic defi- relationship between the conditions for
by the fact that they are “embedded nition of budget compliance, deadline changes and the resulting performance.
in an organic way into a firm and its compliance, and scope delivery. These It is worth repeating that this article
management structures” (p. 418). They measures provide only a partial view of focuses on PMO changes on the basic
showed that PMO activities tend to overall project performance, but they assumption that conditions exist that
concentrate on formal control systems still inform the basic metrics of proj- will eventually lead to a change. “Condi-
(boundary systems and diagnostic ect management (Cooke-Davies, 2004). tions for change” is a set of independent
control systems) and to disregard the Second, business performance is asso- variables describing the situation before
more dynamic and behavioral control ciated with benefits to the organization the change. PMO changes are under-
systems (belief systems and interactive generated by projects or programs (Zwi- taken to obtain some improvement in
control systems). They recommended kael & Smyrk, 2012). Acknowledging the terms of performance. The resulting
that the PMOs play a more integrative impact of a PMO change on business “performance” contains a set of depen-
role in management control through a performance clearly establishes the link dent variables. “Organizational context”
more organic PMO structure embed- between this entity and the strategic as well as “changes in PMO roles” are
ded within the organization. role of a project’s coordination mecha- considered as moderators.
nisms. Last, project management matu-
As mentioned earlier in reference to rity has been included since it measures Identification of Variables
coordination mechanisms, these results some improvement in the organiza-
support the view that different control tion’s project management capabilities. Identification of dependent variables
mechanisms are used in combination Maturity assessment is an imperfect The ultimate goal of any organization
in the management of multiple proj- measure of performance when taken undertaking a structural change is to
ects, from more formal and rigid control in isolation, without accounting for the improve its performance, whether by
systems to more informal and organic particular organizational context (Mul- developing new products or services or
ones. This confirms that PMO outcomes laly & Thomas, 2010). However, using heightening its efficiency by optimiz-
can be differentiated based on their in-depth research based on 65 interna- ing operational costs or by some other
role. These PMO roles are not fixed in tional cases, Mullaly and Thomas (2010) means (e.g., Van de Ven & Sun, 2011).
time. Coordination mechanisms result suggested that increasing the level of This study aims to explain the impact
from interaction among the actors and maturity resulted in a greater level of of PMO changes on three dependent
therefore evolve over time (Bengtsson intangible value, although it could not variables: project performance, busi-
et al., 2007). A fortiori, PMOs frequently be confirmed by statistical analysis. ness performance, and project manage-
change, creating a new control and sup- Altogether, these three components ment maturity. Following Cooke-Davies
port landscape. of performance—project performance, (2004) we have adopted a three-faceted
business performance, and project man- concept of performance: project man-
Outcomes of Organizational Change agement maturity—form a multifaceted agement performance, business perfor-
Organizational change refers to a comprehensive view of the outcome of mance and, finally, project management
wide spectrum of literature in orga- PMO change. Moreover, given that the maturity (as a learning mechanism).
nization theory (Guérard, Langley, & PMO change forms part of a continual Dependent variables are mea-
Seidl, 2014). A review of this literature dynamic transition process, the out- sured on a 9-point Likert scale, on
is outside the scope of this article. Our come of the change becomes the input which respondents indicated whether
interest in this article focuses on the for the next cycle. This view of perfor- performance or maturity deteriorated,
outcomes of organizational change. As mance as both input and output in a remained unchanged or improved fol-
mentioned by Pettigrew, Woodman, pluralistic context might then be inter- lowing the PMO change. This way of
and Cameron (2001), a shortage exists preted in a perspective of performativity measuring performance provides a rela-
of empirical studies dealing with the (Guérard et al., 2014). tive appraisal based on the respondents’
link between the capacity for change perceptions, while avoiding the difficult
and action and organizational perfor- Variables, Factors, and issue of how to measure performance in
mance (p. 702). In the context of PMO Research Framework absolute terms.
change, we adopted performance as Following what has been said above Project management performance
the outcome of PMO change, referred in the literature, this section aims to and business performance have been

22 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

transformed in dummy variables. for changes and their impact on per- Creating factors to reduce the number of
Because the Likert scales for these vari- formance and maturity is subject to variables
ables are not considered continuous a number of contingencies related to The following process aims to iden-
variables, they have been converted the organizational context and the way tify valid and reliable factors. Principal
into a dummy variable defined as a in which the change is managed. Four component analysis with varimax rota-
“[n]onmetrically 1 measured variable variables are retained for capturing the tion is an effective means of reducing
transformed into a metric 1 variable by organizational context: the variables to a limited number of fac-
assigning a 1 or a 0 to a subject, depend- tors, which simplifies statistical analysis
ing on whether it possesses a particular 1. Organizational size is one of the most and interpretation and facilitates use
characteristic” (Hair, Black, Babin, & common elements mentioned in the of the results in practice (Hair et  al.,
Anderson, 2010, p. 2). Each variable was organizational management literature 2010). Moreover, principal component
re-coded by splitting the sample into (Mintzberg, 1979) as an explanation for analysis provides a more robust con-
two parts based on the median value. variations. struct because it captures a diversity of
Project management maturity is a 2. Project management maturity at the perspectives on a single concept. The
factor (see Table 1), and the means of organizational level can have a sig- results of previous factor analysis pro-
constituent variables has been used. nificant impact on project manage- vide the starting point for this process
ment in general and on PMOs in (Aubry, Hobbs, et al., 2011). The authors
Identification of independent variables particular (Hobbs & Aubry, 2010). In identified variables that form conceptu-
Independent variables concern the this sense, this variable relates to the ally consistent groups and then veri-
drivers of PMO change. Conditions for context and can have a moderating fied the reliability of the new constructs
change consist either of events in the effect on the relationship between using Cronbach alpha statistics. All of
external or internal environment or the the conditions for change and the them fall within the acceptable limit for
issues, tensions, and conflicts inherent impact of change on performance reliability according to the Cronbach
in organizational politics (Mintzberg, and maturity. alpha rule (>0.60) (Hair et  al., 2010).
1983). Six variables are identified as 3. The cultural environment also contrib- Table 1 presents the variables included
events that refer to a state or a change utes to the overall context (Henrie & in the factors and their related Alpha
in the organization’s external or internal Sousa-Poza, 2005). The supportiveness cronbach statistics.
environment. Issues refer to tensions of the organizational culture has been
or conflicts that develop over time. shown to have an important impact Research Framework
Nine variables are labeled as tensions. on PMO implementation and is con- Altogether, these sets of variables are
An organization usually undertakes a sidered an organizational contextual organized into the following research
major change when debate exists within variable in this study (Hobbs & Aubry, framework (see Figure 1).
the organization. The issues are the top- 2010). This variable reflects change in
ics of such debate. the organizational culture supporting Methodology
Four other context-related variables the PMO before and after the PMO As mentioned earlier, this article builds
have been analyzed for their influence transformation. on previous qualitative and quantitative
on the dependent variables: the eco- 4. Changing a PMO involves an organi- research and endeavors to better under-
nomic sector, types of deliverables, zational change and the effectiveness stand the PMO transformation process
PMO geographic distribution, and num- of any organizational change can be by examining PMO control and support
ber of employees in the organization. influenced by the use of accompany- roles. This research is exploratory. The
The correlation matrix shows no rela- ing change management practices. The unit of analysis is PMO transformation.
tionships significant or strong enough last variable describing the context is
to be considered. therefore the extent to which change Data Collection Strategy
management is used to support the A survey instrument was developed to
Identification of moderators PMO change. operationalize the PMO transforma-
Two types of moderators are examined tion process model and generalize it
in the present study. The first concerns Because the Likert scales for these from case studies to a larger population
the primary focus of the article: the variables are not considered continuous (see Aubry, Hobbs, et  al., 2011). The
effects of increasing the supportive and variables, they have been converted into questionnaire was available through a
controlling roles of the PMO. Second, a dummy variable as defined above. website in English and French. Prelimi-
the relationship between the conditions Each variable was re-coded by splitting nary tests were initially administered
the sample into two parts based on the in both French and English for valid-
1In italics in the original text. median value. ity, language bias, and question clarity.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 23

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

March 2009. Three reminders were sent

Factors Cronbach Alpha
out during this period. A total of 184
Events External events 0.787
sufficiently complete responses were
Independent Change in the global economy used in the statistical analysis. This is
factors Change in your industry or market reflected in the sample, where 69% of
Change in the national or local political environment transformations happened within the
last 2 years. Descriptive statistics are
Change in the regulatory environment
presented in Table 2.
Pressures related to social responsibilities, ethics, or The sample statistics show that 40%
environmental impact
of respondents were in a management
Change in top management 0.712 position: PMO managers (20.1%), proj-
New ownership through merger or acquisition ect managers (10.9%), and senior exec-
New CEO utives (9.8%). Most respondents were
concerned with small projects with
Changes in the composition of the executive team other
than the CEO 68.7% of the sample dealing with 1–25
people working on a typical project. A
Broad organizational restructuring
majority of these projects were deliv-
Issues Portfolio management 0.797 ered to internal customers (67.7%).
Independent Project alignment with strategy
factors Availability of relevant information for decision makers Statistical Analysis Methods
The relationships among variables were
Project selection
first examined using Pearson correla-
Allocation of resources across multiple projects
tion coefficients. Then, two different
Fit between project management methods and project and complementary statistical analyses
characteristics were performed, each focusing on a dif-
Collaboration 0.664 ferent type of dependent variable:
Tensions or conflicts within the organization
Customer and stakeholder relationships 1. The multiple regression method was
used to find explanations for perfor-
Synergy among project managers
mance variations. This method requires
Project management and line collaboration continuous variables. This analysis was
Project management maturity 0.692 performed for the dependent factor of
Organizational commitment to project management project management maturity.
2. The logistic regression method was
Project management skill level
used to identify variables that increase
Project management maturity
or decrease the probability of perfor-
Work climate 0.677 mance. In this analysis, two dichoto-
Work climate mized dependent individual variables
Work–family balance were used: project performance and
business performance.
Impact Project management maturity 0.853
Dependent Organizational commitment to project management Both of these statistical methods
factor Project management skill level entail a certain number of assumptions.
Project management maturity Four assumptions have been verified.
Table 1: Reliability of factors. First, we verified a low correlation (<0.50)
among the independent variables using
Pearson correlation coefficients. Sec-
The method used to gather the sample to participate were sent through ond, we checked for the absence of
was not probabilistic but rather of con- researcher networks and posted on the collinearity between independent vari-
venience under a snowball approach: PMI website. Based on this data col- ables with the variance inflation fac-
only respondents able to describe a lection strategy, a response rate could tor (VIF)≤5 (Hair et  al., 2010). Third,
PMO transformation were asked to not be calculated. Data collection took the nonheteroskedastic residuals were
answer the questionnaire. Invitations place between September 2008 and tested using the Breusch-Pagan test;

24 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Organizational Context and Changes in
Supportive and Controlling Roles

Moderators
Organizational Context
• Size of the organization
• Project management maturity
in the organization
• Change management
• Increase the organizational
Conditions for PMO Changes support culture to PMO

Independent Variables Changes in PMO Roles

• Increase PMO supportive role
Events • Increase PMO controlling role
• New PMO manager
• New vision and/or strategy
• Competition
• Increased workload
• External events (factor) Dependent Variables
• Change in top management (factor)
• Project management performance
Issues • Business performance
• Accountability for projects • Project management
• Cost of PMO maturity (factor)
• Project management performance
• Business performance Impact on Performance and Maturity
• Lack of standardization
• Portfolio management (factor)
• Collaboration (factor)
• Project management maturity (factor)
• Work climate (factor)

Figure 1: Research framework.

and last, the assumption of normality case, an interpretation of the quasi- moderator effect (cross products) of the
was tested and could not be rejected. moderator variable must account for variable. The results are presented in
Moderator effects were explored fol- both the direct effect on the dependent the following section.
lowing Sharma, Durand, and Gur-Arie variable and the moderator effect. In
(1981). A moderator variable has been other words, direct effect changes the Results
defined “as one which systematically relationship between independent and
modifies either the form and/or the dependent variables. Correlation Matrix
strength of the relationship between a Moderator effects are examined Correlation is a statistical method used
predictor and a criterion variable” (p. using a series of three regressions for to investigate the potential relationships
291). In the context of PMO transfor- each moderator variable. Step 1 is a between the factors and individual
mation, this approach can improve our regression performed with indepen- variables considered in the research
understanding of the PMO transforma- dent variables only. This provides a framework. The correlation matrix (see
tion process and the predictability of basis for comparison with regressions Table A1) provides the Pearson correla-
certain PMO transformation outcomes. including the moderator variable. Step tion coefficient and the two-tailed sig-
We distinguished between pure and 2 is a regression including all the inde- nificance test. Correlations above 0.34
quasi-moderators (Sharma et al., 1981). pendent variables and the moderator are highlighted in bold. To interpret the
A pure moderator variable is defined as variable. This measures whether the correlation, one should remember that
one that affects only the relationship moderator has a direct effect on the the percentage of variance explained is
between the predictor and the criterion dependent variable and is therefore a equal to the square of the Pearson coef-
variable, without affecting the crite- potential quasi-moderator. Step 3 adds ficient. For example, a coefficient of 0.34
rion variable. Moderator variables that to the cross-products of each inde- thus explains 10% of the variance. To
affect the criterion variable are identi- pendent variable with the moderator explain 25% of a variance would require
fied as quasi-moderators. In this latter variable. This identifies the significant a coefficient of 0.5.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 25

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Total Percentage Total Percentage

PMO geographical distribution Types of deliverables
Canada 74 41.3 IS or IT 84 47.5
USA 41 22.9 New product/service development 34 19.2
Sweden 15 8.4 Engineering or construction 30 16.9
Others 49 27.4 Business processes 16 9
Total 179 100 Consulting services 13 7.3
Total 177 100
Economic sector
Finance, insurance, and real estate 35 20.1 Number of employees in organization
Communications 19 10.9 1–500 43 23.8
Manufacturing 17 9.8 501–1,000 13 7.2
Public administration 17 9.8 1,000–10,000 employees 55 30.4
Business services 16 9.2 10,001–30,000 employees 30 16.6
Others 70 40.2 More than 30,000 40 22.1
Total 174 100 Total 181 100
Table 2: Sample demographic statistics.

No co-linearity was found between block A, steps 1 and 2, for each of the performance (p  <  0.05) (see Tables
the independent variables (>0.5). Among six logistic regressions (see Tables A2– A2–A7). Change in top management
the 21 significant correlations greater A7). There are eight direct effects on can disturb coordination mechanisms
than 0.34, only two were slightly greater project management performance: six and create a sort of organizational
than 0.5. We decided to not consider independent variables and two mod- uncertainty and ambiguity that lowers
those two variables as creating problem erators. The total variance explained project performance until new mecha-
of co-linearity, the variance inflation fac- by this model on project management nisms are put in place (Rieley & Clark-
tor being under 3.0 (Hair et al., 2010) performance as the dependent variable son, 2001) or have serious breakdowns
varies from 41% to 53%. (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). This phe-
Direct Effects nomenon of a period of chaos after a
Six hierarchical logistic and multiple 1. “Project management performance PMO transformation has been docu-
regressions were run based upon the issues” have the strongest potential mented (Aubry, Hobbs, et  al., 2011)
research framework, one for each vari- (p < 0.001) to predict an improvement and is often associated with new man-
able identified as a moderator (see Figure in project management performance agers who devise a personal manage-
1 for the research framework and see in the context of PMO transforma- ment philosophy that radically departs
Tables A2–A7 for regressions). The follow- tions (see Tables A3 and A5–A7). This from the previous one. Another inter-
ing sections present significant direct and result seems quite obvious. However, pretation of this result could be that
moderating effects at p  <  0.05 for each given the frequency of transformations new top management teams may be
dependent variable. To help the reader, in PMOs and in organizations more focusing on business performance to
we used letter identification in Tables broadly, questions arise concerning the detriment of project performance.
A2–A7 to differentiate between the blocks the seriousness of changing (Rieley This finding is interesting, because it
of steps for each of the three depen- & Clarkson, 2001) where consecutive appears to stand in contrast to conven-
dent variables (A: project performance; and frequent organizational restruc- tional wisdom that senior management
B: business performance; C: project man- turation may have a negative impact support is a success factor of project
agement maturity). on organizational effectiveness. This management.
result confirms that undertaking a 3. “External events” have a positive effect
Direct effects on project management PMO transformation may deliver the on project management performance
performance expected improvement. (p < 0.05) (see Table A5). PMO transfor-
The direct effects on project manage- 2. “Change in top management” has a mations initiated in response to events
ment performance are identified in negative effect on project management in the external environment are more

26 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 likely to lead to PMO transformations by competition between divisions and 1. The independent variable “busi-
that will positively affect project per- regions, in other words, larger organi- ness performance issues” has a sig-
formance. This result highlights the zational units, and collaboration issues nificant positive impact on business
importance of aligning project man- that are in the working domain of a performance improvement (p  <  0.05)
agement mechanisms with the envi- PMO. The latter kind of issues can be (see Table A5). Again, this result is
ronment (Engwall, 2003; Morris, 2013; resolved by a re-organized PMO. not surprising; it shows that the PMO
Thomas & Mullaly, 2008), in this case, 7. The two last variables having a direct transformation was an effective solu-
external environment. effect on project management perfor- tion to preexisting problems. It also
4. A “new PMO manager” is likely to mance are moderators: change man- confirms that project management
improve project management perfor- agement and change to the PMO’s entities like the PMO can play a role in
mance (p  <  0.05) see Table A4). This supportive role. The result shows that business success.
result is intriguing, as a change in a when change management is applied 2. The presence of an “external event”
management team may upset the rou- to a PMO transformation, it has a posi- as a trigger leading to a PMO trans-
tines and consequently create some tive effect on project management per- formation has a positive impact on
sort of chaos, at least for a little while. formance (p  <  0.05) (see Table A4). business performance (p  <  0.05) (see
This result has to be interpreted jointly This is not surprising, as change man- Tables A2, A3 and A5–A7). This sug-
with the negative impact on project agement is strongly associated with gests that incorporating factors exter-
performance in the case of a change project management (Gareis, 2010). nal to the organization within the PMO
in top management. As mentioned However, previous research has shown transformation process, for example,
above, a coordination chaos can fol- that change management applies in social, economic, or market changes,
low a change in upper management, only 50% of PMO transformations improves the likelihood of a positive
while a new PMO manager, who oper- (Aubry, Hobbs, et al., 2011). This result business performance effect.
ates in a proximity relationship with provides a good argument for insisting 3. The triggering event portfolio manage-
project managers, may put the house on change management for organiza- ment issues has a positive effect on
in some order in the context of PMO tional change. business performance is (p  <  0.05)
transformation. Moreover, this new 8. The last moderator having a direct (see Table A4)—if change manage-
PMO manager may have been directly effect on project management perfor- ment activities are taken simultane-
involved in the transformation. mance is enhancement of the PMO’s ously. Portfolio management includes
5. The “competition between different supportive role. Such enhancement the procedures used to align projects
parts of the organizations for projects” has a significant and positive impact with the organization’s strategy, among
has a negative effect on project manage- (p < 0.05) (see Table A6). This is consis- other processes, while taking into
ment performance (p < 0.05) (see Table tent with most PMO literature arguing account the dynamic external environ-
A4). When tensions or conflicts exist that a PMO should offer services in ment (Petit & Hobbs, 2012). This result
between divisions or regions over get- a collaborative approach with users is consistent with research by Kock,
ting work, business survival may be the (Huemann, 2010). It is also consistent Gemünden, Salomo, & Schultz (2010),
key point for these divisions or regions. with a recent study on PMOs dedi- who showed the portfolio manage-
Therefore, this result can be interpreted cated to project portfolio management, ment impact not only on project suc-
not as if improving project management which contained evidence that PMOs cess but also on product success and,
performance is at stake, but survival. It playing a supportive role are associ- thus, on business.
is also clear that projects as integrative ated with improvement in the success 4. The moderator variable “change
endeavors become more difficult for of single projects (Unger et al., 2012). management,” has a positive impact
the members of project teams if there is on improving business performance
tension between their bosses. Direct effects on business performance (p < 0.05) (see Table A4). As mentioned
6. The impact of “collaboration issues” The direct effects on business perfor- above for project management perfor-
is positive (p  <  0.05) (see Table A4), mance are identified in block B, steps 1 mance, PMO transformations often rep-
leading to the interpretation that the and 2, of each of the six logistic regres- resent major organizational changes,
PMO transformation had contributed sions (see Tables A2–A7). There are four but nearly 50% lack any change man-
to solving tensions and conflicts within positive, direct effects on business per- agement process (Aubry, Hobbs, et al.,
the organization or with customer and formance: three are independent vari- 2011). This result provides an argument
stakeholders, thus increasing project ables and one is a moderator. Overall, to justify the need for change manage-
management performance. It appears this model explains between 33 and 47% ment in order to get not only better
to be useful to distinguish between of the improvement observed in busi- project management performance, but
collaboration issues that are induced ness performance. also better business performance.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 27

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Direct effects on project management success (Williams, 2008). This result (see Tables A2–A7). There are four sig-
maturity is in line with research by Kock et  al. nificant effects on relationships with
The direct effects on project manage- (2010), which showed portfolio man- project performance as a dependent
ment maturity are identified in block C, agement’s impact on project success. variable: three pure moderators and
steps 1 and 2 of each of the six multiple In a longitudinal study Jonas, Kock, one quasi-moderator.
regressions (see Tables A2–A7). There and Gemünden (2013) also showed
are five positive direct effects on project that cooperation between project man- 1. Increasing organizational cultural sup-
management maturity: three indepen- agement and line management is very port for the PMO is a pure modera-
dent and two moderators. This model critical for project portfolio success. It tor for three relationships involving
explains from 32 to 36% of the vari- can be assumed the supportive of role project management performance as
ance in project management maturity of a PMO to improve this cooperation is a dependent variable (see Table A6).
(adjusted R2). explaining our finding. First, increased organizational cultural
4. A fourth positive effect on project support to the PMO has a strong, pure,
1. “External events” have a strong positive management maturity is the level of moderating effect on the relationship
effect on project management matu- organizational project management between project management perfor-
rity (p  <  0.01) (see Tables A2, A3, and maturity as a moderator (p  <  0.05) mance issues and project management
A5–A7). Project management matu- (see Table A3). In the context of PMO performance improvement (p  <  0.01).
rity is the capacity to repeat practices transformation, project management With stronger cultural support for the
that lead to success and avoid others. maturity improves if the overall organi- PMO, the overall culture is more likely
Faced with major changes in the exter- zation’s project management maturity to support project management pro-
nal environment as the conditions for is already high. In this event, project cesses and, consequently, project man-
PMO transformation, project manage- management people are more sen- agement performance will improve.
ment processes can contribute some sitive to what is potentially effective Conversely, if the overall culture does
sort of stability by focusing on what in improving project management not support the PMO, a climate of lais-
really works rather than experimenting maturity. sez-faire will more likely permeate the
with unknown processes. 5. The last direct effect on project man- organization, with negative effects on
2. “Project management performance agement maturity is the moderator project performance. This result sheds
issues” has a positive direct impact on variable “increase the PMO supportive light on the importance of cultural sup-
project management maturity (p < 0.05) role” (p  <  0.05) (see Table A6). This port for PMOs even more intensively
(see Tables A2, A3, A5, and A6). This result is not surprising as a supportive during PMO transformations.
result is reassuring, as the PMO transfor- PMO role is understood here as helping 2. Increased organizational cultural
mation improves project management the project management community support for PMOs also has a strong,
maturity when project management navigates through a transformation. pure, negative moderating effect on
problems are present ex-ante. It is noteworthy that an increase in the relationship between business
3. “Portfolio management issues” as a trig- the controlling role (see Table A7) has performance issues and project man-
ger of PMO changes has a significant no direct effect on project management agement performance improvement
impact on improving project manage- maturity. (p < 0.01). Note that without the mod-
ment maturity (p < 0.05) (see Table A7). erating effect, concerns regarding
This result suggests that in the situation Moderating Effects business performance issues have a
of problems and tensions related to the Moderating effects are identified nonsignificant, negative impact on
project alignment with strategy, project in the logistic regression tables. Fol- project performance. The negative
selection or the allocation of resources, lowing Sharma et  al. (1981), modera- impact raises a question of interpreta-
a change in PMO might solve some tors that also have a direct effect on tion; the moderating effect was then
of these tensions and consequently dependent variables are identified as scrutinized according to high and low
increase project management matu- quasi-moderators. scores on increases in cultural sup-
rity. Here, the results can be interpreted port for PMO. Group analysis2 shows
as showing that not only does portfolio Moderating effects on relationships that the moderator has a greater nega-
management contribute in the short that have project performance as the tive effect when values concerning the
term to monitoring and controlling dependent variable importance of business performance
individual projects, but these actions Moderating effects that have project
also achieve a longer term objective: to performance as a dependent variable 2In order to limit this article to a reasonable length,
improve the capacity of an organization are identified in block A, step 3, of group results for hierarchical regressions are not
to learn from experience and to repeat each of the six logistical regressions included. They are available on demand.

28 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 issues are high. This means that in and the ability of projects to deliver variable are identified in block C, step 3,
situations of major business problems these innovations. Too much support for each of the six multiple regressions
(survival or sustainability), increases for the PMO may be seen as excessive (see Tables A2–A7). Overall, four mod-
in the PMO supporting culture are process orientation (or bureaucracy) erating variables have significant effects
more likely to deteriorate project compared to the urgency of business- on five relationships, two of them being
management performance. This raises side action. as quasi-moderators.
the question of governance, as in the
governance framework proposed by Moderating effects on relationships where 1. Increase in organizational cultural sup-
Müller (2011) and Müller et al. (2013, business performance is the dependent port for the PMO has the strongest
2014), where organizations tend to variable effect (p < 0.01), with a negative, pure
favor one orientation over the other Moderating effects that have business moderating effect on the relationship
between business outcomes and performance as the dependent variable between external events and project
project management processes. Our are identified in block B, step 3, for each management maturity (see Table A5).
results illustrate the case where a shift of the six logistic regressions (see Tables In the context of a PMO transforma-
in governance orientation may happen A2–A7). Change management is the only tion, increased organizational cultural
along with the PMO transformation. moderator variable that has an effect support for PMOs will likely dimin-
3. Increase in the organizational support on the dependent variable “business ish the positive impact of external
culture for PMOs is a pure moderator performance” that has a quasi-moder- issues on project management matu-
of the relationship between portfolio ator effect (see Table A4). The effect rity. Improved support for PMOs usu-
management issues and project man- on the relationship between the “inde- ally has a beneficial impact on the
agement performance (p < 0.05). This pendent work climate issues” factor and overall project management culture.
moderator positively influences the the “business performance dependent However, in the presence of challeng-
relationship, although the relation- variable” is positive (p < 0.05). Work cli- ing external events, the focus shifts to
ship is negative for high moderator mate issues relate to the PMO and, more the business side of the organization.
values in a sample of split groups. The largely, to project-based management Solving these challenges occurs out-
direct relationship is not significant. as a locus of tensions where the morale side of project management. In this
In situations where a culture support- of individuals deteriorates and causes context, encouraging a culture sup-
ive of PMOs has grown significantly, distress at work (Asquin, Garel, & Picq, portive of project management is more
a decrease in project management 2010). Aubry, Hobbs, and colleagues likely to disengage people investing in
performance is expected when major (2011) have described 17 cases in which project management processes. In this
portfolio management issues come different types of tensions, and some- situation the best course is to avoid
into play. This result is surprising, times open conflicts, arise in and around any decrease and to refrain from inter-
since a more supportive culture for PMOs. Change management is about vening. However, this compounds the
PMOs would naturally be expected to taking care of multiple stakeholders that importance of monitoring the external
produce better project management could be affected by change (Gareis & environment, particularly in a context
performance results, especially in the Huemann, 2008; Rondeau, 2008) and of PMO transformation.
face of major problems. working with them; the change follows 2. Increasing the PMO supportive role is a
4. Increase in the PMO supportive role has a more inclusive approach. This result negative quasi-moderator for the same
a strong, quasi-moderating negative indicates that managing the change is relationship as above, between the
effect on the relationship between busi- more likely to improve business perfor- external events factor and the project
ness performance and project man- mance by alleviating work climate issues. management maturity dependent vari-
agement performance issues (p < 0.01) In the context of a PMO transformation, able (p < 0.05) (see Table A6). Increas-
(see Table A6). Increasing the support- and in the presence of workplace issues, ing the supportive role of the PMO
ive role of the PMO has a negative business people are more willing to buy- is closely associated with increased
effect when the issue concerns busi- in when they are prepared and when organizational cultural support for the
ness performance. A more supportive they participate in the change, which PMO. Yet, the same interpretation can
PMO role weakens the relationship translates into business performance. be made here. Faced with challenging
and produces poorer project manage- external events, no strong supportive
ment performance results. This could Moderating effects on relationships that effort should be offered to the different
be interpreted as an indication that have project management maturity as the stakeholders.
when business goes wrong, the organi- dependent variable 3. Increasing the PMO supportive role is
zation’s survival is more closely linked Moderating effects that have project a quasi-moderator on a second rela-
than ever to innovation of some sort, management maturity as the dependent tionship: competition and project

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 29

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

management maturity (p < 0.05) (see on project management maturity be The size of an organization is often
Table A6). The relationship is only resolved and lead to greater project used as contingency variable to explain
significant in the presence of the management maturity. variations in organizational phenom-
quasi-moderator and has a negative ena and as a control variable. In this
impact, whereas the enhanced PMO Altogether, direct and modera- study, the size of the organization does
supportive role has a direct positive tor effects provide a rich image of the not explain variations in the sample
effect on project management matu- dynamics of PMO transformation by regarding the dependent variables. The
rity. This result is counter intuitive, establishing relationships between ex- regression analysis performed on the
like the two results above. A support- ante conditions and their impact on three dependent variables revealed
ive role, particularly in the context of transformation outcomes. Following only a weak influence on the project
an organizational change, is normally this initial interpretation of the results, management maturity issue and project
understood as a positive approach the next section explores the theoreti- performance relationships, which was
with the engagement of different cal and practical contributions of this not considered significant enough to be
stakeholders (e.g., Beldi, Cheffi, & Dey, article in more detail. retained. In previous research on PMOs
2010; Fiedler, 2010; Smyth, 2015). The (e.g., Hobbs & Aubry, 2010), the size of
presence of strong competition as a Discussion the organization did not help explain
condition leading to PMO change may the phenomenon. This echoes the his-
create a climate closed to any intrusion Absent Variables torical alternative approach, whereby
in the internal process of biding for Discussions of results are usually based coordination mechanisms and the
projects. upon an analysis of significant relation- relationships between economic and
4. Change management is a positive pure ships. In certain cases, however, the diversified units are more important
moderator in the relationship between absence of significant relationships is variables than the sizes of the organiza-
project management maturity issues an equally precious result. Among the tion and the industrial sector (Zeitlin,
and the impact on the project manage- 15 initial independent variables, six 2008).
ment maturity factor (p < 0.05) (see have no direct effect on at least one of The absence of an increasing PMO
Table A4). The relationship is not sig- the three dependent variables or are controlling role as having direct or mod-
nificant without the moderator pres- not part of a relationship impact with a erating effects is a great result when
ence of change management. The role moderating or quasi-moderator: contrasted with the extended PMO
of change management seems crucial supportive role. Based on this result,
to issues of project management matu- 1. New vision and/or new strategy increasing the control of a PMO does
rity. The expected improvements from 2. Increased workload not seem to lead to improvements in
the PMO change will mainly happen 3. Project accountability project performance, business perfor-
within change management processes. 4. PMO cost mance, or project management matu-
This result is consistent with the lit- 5. Lack of standardization rity. Increased control does not help
erature on organizational change man- 6. Collaboration reinforce any relationships either. In
agement (Gareis & Huemann, 2010), this study, we adopted a model in which
although it deviates from what has All six variables were strongly iden- control and support roles can coexist.
been observed in previous research on tified in case studies on PMO trans- It is not one or the other, but one and
change management in PMO transfor- formation (Aubry, Hobbs, et  al., 2011). the other, each to varying degrees. The
mation (Aubry, Hobbs, et al., 2011). Surprisingly, this study was unable to results show that a major increase the
5. Project management maturity capture any contributions by these vari- support role is more likely to generate
within the organization has a quasi- ables to the model. This study focuses improvements in project performance
moderator, positive effect on the rela- on explaining improvements in perfor- and project management maturity.
tionships between issues, on project mance after a PMO transformation. It
management maturity, and on the may happen that these six variables are Main Effects
impact on project management matu- less important than others in this spe-
rity (p  <  0.05) (see Table A3). This cific approach. PMO transformation and environmental
relationship is only significant in the In terms of the direct effects of mod- awareness
presence of the quasi-moderator. Inter- erators, two variables have no direct Inspired by Engwall (2003), scholars in
pretation of this is quite simple, con- effect or moderating effect: the project management field are now
sidering that, only when overall project well aware of the importance of the
management maturity within the orga- 1. Organization size context in which projects are executed.
nization is good can specific issues 2. Expanded control role This importance is all the greater when

30 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

organizational change is involved. For understood in a large sense, including management performance and project
example, Van de Ven and Sun (2011) its history (Zeitlin, 2008). management maturity. In the context of
have shown that implementing such Second, it is noteworthy that the PMO transformation, a PMO supportive
organizational change requires that presence of external events as an ini- role is seen to provide help or advice,
leaders adapt the change strategy to the tial condition for PMO transformation and avoid behavior associated with con-
organizational dynamics. This requires is the single predictive variable hav- trol or rigidity, as in competing values
that leaders be aware of and willing to ing a direct impact on all three depen- framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
adapt to changing situations. Within the dent variables: project management Quite intuitively, this support might be
limits of quantitative research, this study performance, business performance, interpreted as enhancing performance;
takes account of the initial conditions of and project management maturity. It however, this PMO supportive role
the context leading to a change. More- reinforces what was said above about does not impact business performance.
over, the global organizational context the importance of the context prior to Finally, the organizational PMO support
has also been taken into account as PMO transformation. External events culture does not directly affect any of
moderators. Naming variables provides may include any change in the social, the dependent variables.
the opportunity to make the context political, economic, or technological On the other hand, an expanded
clear and avoid the grey zone inherent external environment. As in the inno- PMO supportive role or increased sup-
in the term “context” (Seidl & Whitting- vation field, what one observes when port within the organizational culture
ton, 2014). In the specific case of PMO considering an object at a given point for PMOs as moderators has a negative
transformation, this study reveals two in time is that the object is the com- effect on the resulting performance. This
main, context-related points: bined result of evolution in a changing is quite surprising; support is naturally
First, this research confirms the environment (Hughes, 1998; Petroski, associated with something “good.” Sup-
multifaceted nature of the context 1994). In this sense, these results show port has a negative moderator impacts
involved in a PMO transformation. The the connection between the external in three situations. The first situation
results show the presence of multiple environment and the internal organi- concerns business performance issues,
independent and moderator variables zation developed for managing mul- where both the organizational culture
having direct impacts on performance tiple projects. Moreover, the presence and the PMO supportive role lead to dete-
outcomes after a PMO transformation. of external events sheds light on the rioration in project management perfor-
Rarely can the context be reduced to importance of considering the external mance. Indeed, care should be taken
one or another aspect. This reinforces environment when undertaking such when expanding a support approach. It
the importance of context when deal- an important organizational change as seems that when confronted with busi-
ing not only with single projects (e.g., a PMO transformation. Monitoring the ness challenges, project management
Engwall, 2003), but as in this research, external environment should form part support is not perceived as helpful.
with a multiproject setting (e.g., Thomas of the PMO’s organizational learning This is a challenging result. It reveals
& Mullaly, 2008). It also harmonizes function not only in preparation for a an “either/or” organizational duality
with other scholars who call for greater transformation, but also as an on-going between business and project manage-
project management anchorage within activity. This result raises the question ment, not ambidexterity (March, 1991),
a contingency theory perspective (e.g., of the role of an entity such as a PMO where innovation builds on exploration
Morris, 2013). However, contingency in relation to environmental awareness (project) and exploitation (business)
theory should be viewed broadly, in and sense-making within an imperma- together. This is reinforced by business
keeping with Donaldson (2001), to nent organization (Weick, 2009), while performance results when project man-
avoid the narrow restriction of con- at the same time abandoning purely agement conditions are absent.
tingency to specific variables such as mechanistic thinking where there is A paradoxical approach may pro-
size of the organization or region (e.g., right or wrong way of doing things. vide good insight into organizational
Mintzberg, 1979). Our results illustrate dynamics (Cameron & Quinn, 1988;
this limitation. The size of the organiza- Paradox (or duality) in the PMO service Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The
tion did not indicate any impact on per- orientation: the difficult combination paradoxical view is also relevant in the
formance after the PMO transformation. of business and project management study of pluralism as it relates to per-
Other research on PMOs show similar Some results concerning the support- formance (Cameron, 1986), particularly
results: variables such as region, indus- ive role related to organizational cul- in project management performance
trial sector, and organization size fail ture or the PMO are paradoxical. On (Aubry, Richer, & Lavoie-Tremblay,
to explain the PMO variations (Hobbs the one hand, the results show that 2014). It highlights the multiple and
& Aubry, 2010). This suggests that the an expanded PMO supportive role often contradictory views of numerous
context surrounding the PMO must be has positive direct effects on project stakeholders.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 31

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Enablers and barriers in transforming the collaborative development of new The main contribution of this article
PMOs capabilities (Rondeau, 2008). to the research is that it provides some
However, the strongest effect emerging Of interest is the co-existence of evidence of PMO roles as coordina-
from this study concerns project per- multiple effects. While we have men- tion mechanisms in a changing envi-
formance issues as a direct predictor of tioned the most important, they come ronment. Data for this research were
project performance and project man- together in different combinations that collected in the context of a PMO trans-
agement maturity. Project performance produce different improvements. Con- formation, and hence in a changing
issues can take several forms, although ditions predate PMO transformations environment. This research explored in
they generally concern the fact that proj- and there is little that a decision maker more detail the transformations that
ects are off-target in terms of their scope, can do except to monitor external and occur in the role a PMO can play as a
schedule, and/or budget. These being internal environments and prepare, but control and/or a supportive coordina-
the initial conditions before the PMO a PMO transformation should be man- tion mechanism. The research confirms
transformation, the more serious these aged like a project with key objectives. the positive impact on performance
issues, the greater the resulting improve- In this regard, the results of this research of increasing the supportive role. This
ment in project performance and project could help decision makers reflect on is a significant result that should urge
management maturity. The result is sat- the PMO’s roles and on dynamic change greater caution toward the return of the
isfying: the problem is solved after the management. iron cage, with more and more bureau-
PMO transformation. cratic control taking place in the proj-
Confronted with challenges from Conclusion ect management context as noted by
external sources, the support given to This research aims to explore the effects Maylor, Brady, Cooke-Davies, & Hodg-
the PMO either by means of the orga- of the PMO’s control and support roles son (2006). It also has some effects on
nizational culture or by expanding the on the outcomes of a PMO transforma- the ability of a PMO to play a more
PMO’s supportive role negatively affects tion. These outcomes include project dynamic role as an integrative entity
project management maturity. In these performance, business performance, rather than mainly focusing on a control
situations, support produces the oppo- and project management maturity. The function. More generally, this research
site effect to what would be expected. results show some evidence that PMO contributes to a better understanding
Along with external environment moni- transformation can improve these out- of entities, such as the PMO in rela-
toring, more extensive monitoring of comes. This reinforces the argument tion to organizational design in order
PMO stakeholders is an effective means that organizational change is an evolu- to improve organizational performance.
of achieving a PMO transformation in tionary process capable of enhancing
terms of project management maturity. not only project management perfor- PMOs Change Frequently
mance and maturity, but also business This research contributes insights for
performance. The major results can practitioners about factors that posi-
Change management be summarized by the four following tively impact the outcomes of these
One interesting finding of this study points: changes. It examines the organizational
concerns the change management in design of coordination mechanisms in
PMO transformation. Descriptive sta- 1. Increase PMO supportive role: strong the management of multiple projects
tistics have already identified a lack predictor for project performance, within an organization and in a dynamic
of change management in major PMO business performance, and proj- context. In some contexts, where more
transformations and the ensuing imple- ect management maturity. Attention PMO control is identified as a means to
mentation difficulties (Aubry, Hobbs, should focus on the negative effect improve project success, these results
et al., 2011). Engaging people in change that the supportive role can have in may indicate nonintervention, with-
takes more than an instrumental pro- the presence of challenging external out taking into consideration the need
cess of managing the change after the events. of being supportive. The results also
fact. Good training program or attrac- 2. Project performance issues: strong emphasize the benefits for engaging in
tive communication will not reach the predictor for improving project man- PMO change, with consideration given
same level of engagement when they agement performance, and project to how this change is managed. This
happen once everything is decided management maturity. can influence practitioners in planning
leaving no voice for stakeholders. 3. Enhancement of the control role is nei- for a change.
Engaging people could mean involving ther a predictor nor a moderator. The main limitation of this study
them early in the transformation process 4. Change management: can improve certainly concerns the quantita-
and giving them a stake in the project. business performance and project tive approach, in which context is not
This dynamic approach is based on management maturity. given exhaustive consideration. This is

32 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

noteworthy given that organizations are and five anonymous reviewers for their The case of a major transformation
more complex and multiple governance comments, which have significantly in a university hospital. International
instances co-exist with one or many contributed to the enhancement of this Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
PMOs in a single organization. However, article and have made it better. More- 1333–1345.
some specific features of the research over, I wish to thank all the individuals Beldi, A., Cheffi, W., & Dey, P. K.
design demand attention in order to who have taken the time to answer the (2010). Managing customer relation-
limit these effects. First, some questions questionnaire. Without their contribu- ship management projects: The case
were included to capture most of the tions, there is no research! of a large French telecommunications
context. Second, this study is part of a company. International Journal of Project
research program in which rich case References
Management, 28(4), 339–351.
studies were conducted to explore PMO Artto, K. A., Kulvik, I., Poskela, J., &
Bengtsson, M., Müllern, T., Söderholm,
transitions. Another limitation concerns Turkulainen, V. (2011). The integrative
A., & Wahlin, N. (2007). A grammar
the small number of elements used to role of the project management office in
of organising. Cheltenham, England:
capture the control and supportive roles. the front end of innovation. International
Edward Elgar.
More comprehensive concepts would Journal of Project Management, 29(4),
have provided a more shaded under- 408–421. Bijker, W. E. (1989). The social con-
standing of these two roles. Asquin, A., Garel, G., & Picq, T. (2010). struction of bakelite: Toward a theory
Two areas call for future research. When project-based management causes of invention. In W. E. Bijker, T. J. Pinch,
The first is to take an added step from distress at work. International Journal of & P. T. Hughes (Eds.), The social con-
a theoretical standpoint to integrate Project Management, 28(2), 166–172. struction of technological system: New
these results into organizational change directions of in the sociology and history
Aubry, M. (2011). The social reality of
theories (e.g., Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). of technology (pp. 159–187). Cambridge,
organisational project management at
PMO transformation was the focus of MA: MIT Press.
the interface between networks and hier-
this specific research. Although it con- archy. International Journal of Managing Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (2003).
stitutes a good starting point for organi- Projects in Business, 4(3), 436–457. Formal organizations: A compara-
zations dealing with multiple projects, tive approach. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Aubry, M. (2013). The design of research
the fundamental goal centers more University Press.
programs: Example from a PMO research
directly on making a contribution to program. In N. Drouin, R. Müller, & Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as
the theoretical field of organizational S. Sankaran (Eds.), Novel approaches paradox: Consensus and conflict in con-
change management. This will require to organizational project management ceptions of organizational effectiveness.
assessing the current state of theories research: Translational and transfor- Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.
on the topic and identifying how this mational (pp. 237–265). Copenhagen, Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988).
research can generate new understand- Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Organizational paradox and transforma-
ing in the project management field. Press. tion. In R. E. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.),
Secondly, practical application of the Paradox and transformation: Toward
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Müller, R., &
research in the field would further vali- a theory of change in organization and
Blomquist, T. (2011). Identifying the
date the relationships identified here. management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA:
forces driving the frequent changes in
It would also ensure a more effective Ballinger Publishing.
PMOs. Newtown Square, PA: Project
transfer of the research results to the
Management Institute. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011).
real world.
Aubry, M., Richer, M.-C., Lavoie- Diagnosing and changing organizational
Acknowledgments Tremblay, M., & Cyr, G. (2011). culture: Based on the competing values
Pluralism in PMO performance: The framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
This research has benefited from the
case of a PMO dedicated to a major Jossey-Bass.
financial support from PMI’s sponsored
research program. Thanks for this pre- organizational transformation. Project Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004). Project
cious help in making research doable. I Management Journal, 42(6), 60–77. management maturity models. In
also wish to thanks my colleagues, Brian Aubry, M., Müller, R., & Glückler, J. P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.),
Hobbs, Ralf Müller, and Tomas Blom- (2012). Governance and communities The Wiley guide to managing projects
squist for their contributions to this of PMOs. Newtown Square, PA: Project (pp. 1234–1264). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
research program. My greatest thanks Management Institute. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990).
go to Carl St-Pierre, statistician, for his Aubry, M., Richer, M.-C., & Lavoie- Grounded theory research: Procedures,
invaluable support and patience. Spe- Tremblay, M. (2014). Governance canons, and evaluative criteria.
cial thanks go to Hans Jörg Gemünden performance in complex environment: Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 33

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A results of phase 1. Project Management success by measuring manage-
behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Journal, 38(1), 74–86. ment quality: A longitudinal study.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2010). The IEEE Transactions on Engineering
De Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock project management office: A quest for Management, 60(2), 215–226.
of temporary organizational forms: A understanding. Newtown Square, PA: Khalili-Damghani, K., & Madjid T.
systematic review and research agenda. Project Management Institute. (2014). A comprehensive framework for
International Journal of Management Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., & Thuillier, sustainable project portfolio selection
Reviews, 12(4), 466–486. D. (2008). The project management based on structural equation model-
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contin- office as an organisational innova- ing. Project Management Journal, 45(2),
gency theory of organizations. London, tion. International Journal of Project 83–97.
England: Sage. Management, 26(5), 547–555. Kock, A., Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S.,
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an Huemann, M. (2010). Considering & Schultz, C. (2010, May 19–22). The
island: Linking projects to history and human resource management when different impact of NPD innovativeness
context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808. developing a project-oriented company: on project and product success. Paper pre-
Case study of a telecommunication sented at the EURAM 2010, Rome, Italy.
Fernandes, G., Ward, S., & Araújo, M.
company. International Journal of Project Korhonen, T., Laine, T., & Martinsuo,
(2014). Developing a framework for
Management, 28(4), 361–369. M. (2014). Management control of
embedding useful project management
improvement initiatives in organizations. Huemann, M., Turner, R. J., & Keegan, project portfolio uncertainty: A manage-
Project Management Journal, 45(4), A. E. (2004). Managing human resources rial role perspective. Project Management
81–108. in the project-oriented company. In Journal, 45(1), 21–37.
P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.),
Fiedler, S. (2010). Managing resistance Lundin, R. A., Arvidsson, N., Brady,
The Wiley guide to managing projects
in an organizational transformation: T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C., & Sydow, J.
(pp. 1061–1086). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
A case study from a mobile operator (2015). Managing and working in project
Hughes, T. P. (1998). Rescuing society: Institutional challenges of tempo-
company. International Journal of Project
Prometheus: Four monumental projects rary organizations. Cambridge, England:
Management, 28(4), 370–383.
that changed the modern world. New Cambridge University Press.
Gareis, R. (2010). Changes of organiza-
York, NY: Vintage.
tions by projects. International Journal of Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995).
Hurt, M., & Thomas, J. L. (2009).
Project Management, 28(4), 314–327. A theory of the temporary organization.
Building value through sustainable
Gareis, R., & Huemann, M. (2008). Scandinavian Journal of Management,
project management offices. Project
Change management and projects. 11(4), 437–455.
Management Journal, 40(1), 55–72.
International Journal of Project March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and
Interthink Consulting. (2002). State
Management, 26(8), 771–772. exploitation in organizational learning.
of the PMO 2002. Retrieved from
Gareis, R., & Huemann, M. (2010). Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
http://www.interthink.ca/research/
Guest editorial. International Journal of home.html. Martinsuo, M., & Killen, C. P. (2014).
Project Management, 28(4), 311–313. Value management in project portfolios:
Jacobsson, M., Burström, T., & Wilson,
Guérard, S., Langley, A., & Seidl, D. T. L. (2013). The role of transition Identifying and assessing strategic value.
(2014). Rethinking the concept of per- in temporary organizations: Linking Project Management Journal, 45(5), 56–70.
formance in strategy research: Towards the temporary to the permanent. Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T.,
a performativity perspective. M@n@ International Journal of Managing & Hodgson, D. (2006). From pro-
gement, 16(5), 566–578. Projects in Business, 6(3), 576–586. jectification to programmification.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., Cambré, International Journal of Project
Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate B., & Kenis, P. (2009). Introduction: Management, 24(8), 663–674.
data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle Temporary organizations—a chal- Miner, A. S. (1994). Seeking adaptive
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. lenge and opportunity for our thinking advantage: Evolutionary theory and
Henrie, M., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2005). about organizations. In P. Kenis, M. managerial action. In J. A. C. Baum &
Project management: A cultural litera- Janowicz-Panjaitan, & B. Cambré (Eds.), J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics
ture review. Project Management Journal, Temporary organizations: Prevalence, of organizations (pp. 76–89). New York,
36(2), 5–14. logic and effectiveness (pp. 1–12). NY: Oxford University Press.
Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2007). A multi- Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of
phase research program investigating Jonas, D., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. organizations: A synthesis of the research.
project management offices (PMOs): The (2013). Predicting project portfolio Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

34 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and Pettigrew, A. M. (2003). Innovative portfolio success: An investigation of
around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, forms of organizing: Progress, perfor- organization, process, and culture. Project
NJ: Prentice Hall. mance and process. In A. M. Pettigrew, Management Journal, 44(2), 36–51.
Morris, P. W. G. (2013). Reconstructing R. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez- Teller, J., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G.
project management. Chichester, Runde, F. A. J. Van den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, (2014). Risk management in project
England: Wiley. & T. Numagami (Eds.), Innovative forms portfolios is more than managing project
of organizing (pp. 331–351). London, risks: A contingency perspective on
Mullaly, M., & Thomas, J. L. (2010, July).
England: Sage. risk management. Project Management
Rethinking project management maturity.
Paper presented at the PMI research Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., Journal, 45(4), 67–80.
conference, Washington, DC. & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying Thomas, J. L., & Mullaly, M. E. (2008).
organizational change and development: Researching the value of project man-
Müller, R. (2011). Project governance.
Challenges for future research. Academy agement. Newtown Square, PA: Project
In P. W. G. Morris, J. K. Pinto, & J.
of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713. Management Institute.
Söderlund (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of project management (pp. 297–320). Rieley, J. B., & Clarkson, I. (2001). The Unger, B. N., Gemünden, H. G., &
Oxford, England: Oxford University impact of change on performance. Journal Aubry, M. (2012). The three roles of a
Press. of Change Management, 2(2), 160–172. project portfolio management office: The
Müller, R., Andersen, E. S., Kvalnes Ø., Rondeau, A. (2008). L’évolution de impact on portfolio management execu-
Jingting, S., Sankaran, S., Turner, R., ... la pensée en gestion de changement: tion and success. International Journal of
Gudergan, S. (2013). The interrelation- Leçons pour la mise en œuvre de Project Management, 30(5), 608–620.
ship of governance, trust, and ethics changements complexes [The evolu- Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005).
in temporary organizations. Project tion of thought in change management: Alternative approaches for studying orga-
Management Journal, 44(4), 26–44. Lessons for complex changes implemen- nizational change. Organization Studies,
tation]. Téléscope, 14(3), 1–12. 26, 1377–1404.
Müller, R., Glückler, J., & Aubry,
M. (2013). A relational typology of Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2014). Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K. (2011).
project management offices. Project Enlarging the strategy-as-practice Breakdowns in implementing models
Management Journal, 44(1), 59–76. research agenda: Towards taller and of organization change. Academy of
flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, Management Perspectives, 25(3), 58–74.
Müller, R., Glückler, J., Aubry, M., &
35(10), 1407–1421.
Jingting, S. (2013). Project management Weick, K. E. (2009). Making sense of the
knowledge flows in networks of project Sicotte, H., Drouin, N., & Delerue, S. organization: The impermanent orga-
managers and project management (2014). Innovation portfolio manage- nization (Vol. 2). Chichester, England:
offices: A case study in the pharma- ment as a subset of dynamic capabilities: Wiley.
ceutical industry. Project Management Measurement and impact on innova-
Williams, T. (2008). How do organi-
Journal, 44(2), 4–19. tive performance. Project Management
zations learn lessons from projects—
Journal, 45(6), 58–72.
Müller, R., Turner, R., Andersen, E. S., And do they? IEEE Transactions on
Jingting, S., Kvalnes, Ø., & Jingting, S., Sharma, S., Durand, R., & Gur-Arie, O. Engineering Management, 55(2), 248–266.
(2014). Ethics, trust, and governance (1981). Identification and analysis
Zeitlin, J. (2008). The historical alterna-
in temporary organizations. Project of moderator variables. Journal of
tives approach. In G. Jones & J. Zeitlin
Management Journal, 45(4), 39–54. Marketing Research, 18(3), 291–300.
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business
Pellegrinelli, S., & Garagna, L. (2009). Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision history (pp. 120–140). Oxford, England:
Towards a conceptualisation of PMOs making: A model of senior leaders Oxford University Press.
as agents and subjects of change and managing strategic paradoxes. Academy
Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2012). A
renewal. International Journal of Project of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.
general framework for gauging the
Management, 27(7), 649–656. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). performance of initiatives to enhance
Petit, Y., & Hobbs, B. (2012). Project Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic organizational value. British Journal of
portfolios in dynamic environments: equilibrium of organizing. Academy of Management, 23, S6–S22.
Organizing for uncertainty. Newtown Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Square, PA: Project Management Smyth, H. (2015). Relationship manage- Monique Aubry, PhD is a professor at
Institute. ment and the management of projects. the School of Business and Management,
Petroski, H. (1994). The evolution of Abingdon, England: Routledge. Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM),
useful things. New York, NY: First Vintage Teller, J. (2013). Portfolio risk manage- Montreal, Canada. She teaches in graduate
Books Edition. ment and its contribution to project programs in project management and

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 35

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

in the executive MBA program and her Research Chair (www.pmchair.uqam.ca) and Group and the Research Inform Steering
main research interest is on organizing for the UQAM’s Health and Society Institute. Committee. Monique is an editor for Project
projects and organizational design, more In 2012, she received the IPMA Research Management Journal ® and is involved
specifically, on project management offices Award for her research on project man- in the local PMI communities of practice
(PMOs). The results of her work have been agement offices. Before joining UQAM, on organizational project management,
published in major academic journals on Monique Aubry was senior project manager where she promotes engaged scholar-
project management and presented at sev- in a major Canadian financial group for ship and reflexivity between professionals
eral research and professional conferences. more than 20 years. Until recently, she was and researchers. She can be contacted at
She is member of the Project Management member of the PMI’s Standards Advisory [email protected]

36 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Appendix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Conditions for changes
1. New PMO manager 1
2. New vision and/or new strategy 0.155** 1
3. Competition 0.172** 0.035 1
4. Increase workload 0.037 −0.034 0.028 1
5. Accountability for project issues 0.032 0.184** 0.001 0.107 1
6. Cost of PMO issues 0.086 0.082 0.313**** −0.038 −0.040 1
7. Project management performance issues 0.143* 0.122 0.114 0.108 0.420**** 0.117 1
8. Business performance issues 0.079 0.236*** 0.067 0.037 0.359**** 0.184** 0.535****
9. Lack of standardization issues 0.123 0.125 −0.037 0.126 0.012 −0.199** 0.003
10. External events 0.025 0.05 −0.029 0.164** 0.005 0.073 0.234***
11. Change in top management −0.015 0.244*** 0.190** 0 0.055 0.248*** 0.066
12. Portfolio management issues 0.181** 0.185** 0.323**** 0.11 0.172** 0.192** 0.373****
13. Collaboration issues 0.180** 0.216*** 0.418**** 0.105 0.324**** 0.246*** 0.291****
14. Project management maturity issues 0.252*** 0.188** 0.125 0.139* 0.237*** 0.173** 0.403****
15. Work climate issues 0.113 0.151* 0.196** 0.151* 0.128* 0.264*** 0.247***
Organizational context and changes in supportive and controlling roles

October/November 2015 ■
16. Increase in the PMO supportive role 0.075 0.148* −0.057 0.270*** 0.185** −0.053 0.123
17. Increase in the PMO controlling role 0.229*** 0.250*** 0.029 0.284**** 0.090 −0.031 0.211***
18. Project management maturity at the organizational level 0.044 0.069 −0.001 −0.014 0.006 0.102 0.043
19. Change management −0.039 0.057 0.084 0.218*** 0.133* 0.130 0.178**
20. Increase in the organizational culture support to PMO 0.181** 0.086 0.026 0.119 0.206*** −0.050 0.308****
21. Organization size 0.115 −0.065 0.044 −0.160** −0.063 0.154** −0.053
Impact on performance and maturity
22. Project management performance 0.172** 0.128* 0.079 0.237*** 0.145* 0.097 0.348****
23. Business performance 0.086 0.129* 0.002 0.207*** 0.205*** −0.021 0.225***
24. Project management maturity 0.153* 0.146* 0.125 0.250*** 0.259*** 0.029 0.480****
Means 0.466 0.435 0.483 0.646 0.354 0.417 0.383
Std. dev. 0.5 0.497 0.501 0.480 0.480 0.495 0.487
Table A1: Correlation matrix.

Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

37
 PAPERS

38
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Conditions for changes
1. New PMO manager
2. New vision and/or new strategy

October/November 2015
3. Competition

■
4. Increase workload
5. Accountability for projects issues
6. Cost of PMO issues
7. Project management performance issues
8. Business performance issues 1
9. Lack of standardization issues −0.033 1
10. External events 0.160** 0.017 1
11. Change in top management 0.063 −0.137 0.000 1

Project Management Journal

12. Portfolio management issues 0.345**** −0.019 0.148* 0.153* 1
13. Collaboration issues 0.326**** −0.026 0.269*** 0.168** 0.454**** 1
14. Project management maturity issues 0.316**** 0.035 0.094 −0.030 0.518**** 0.379**** 1
Project Management Office Transformations

15. Work climate issues 0.161** 0.049 0.342**** 0.146* 0.351**** 0.424**** 0.416**** 1
Organizational context and changes in supportive and controlling roles

■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
16. Increase in the PMO supportive role −0.016 0.140 0.148* −0.083 0.208*** 0.177** 0.225*** 0.164**
17. Increase in the PMO controlling role 0.112 0.156* 0.089 −0.015 0.159** 0.138* 0.141* 0.085
18. Project management maturity at the organizational level 0.092 −0.157* 0.000 −0.125 0.051 0.021 0.101 0.100
19. Change management 0.126 0.102 0.203** 0.058 0.262*** 0.134* 0.252*** 0.253***
20. Increase in the organizational culture support to PMO 0.152* 0.220** 0.203** −0.179** 0.278**** 0.108 0.160** 0.073
21. Organization size 0.025 −0.014 0.151* 0.006 −0.004 0.066 −0.064 0.013
Impact on performance and maturity
22. Project management performance 0.124 0.026 0.237*** −0.034 0.225*** 0.215*** 0.274**** 0.220***
23. Business performance 0.260*** −0.013 0.26*** 0.078 0.283**** 0.191** 0.245*** 0.196**
24. Project management maturity 0.339**** 0.094 0.287**** −0.014 0.458**** 0.327**** 0.462**** 0.310****
Means 0.417 0.7483 0.000 0.000 5.321 5.187 5.631 3.682
Std. dev. 0.495 0.436 1.000 1.000 2.066 1.793 2.027 2.196
Table A1: (Continued )
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Conditions for changes
1. New PMO manager
2. New vision and/or new strategy
3. Competition
4. Increase workload
5. Accountability for projects issues
6. Cost of PMO issues
7. Project management performance issues
8. Business performance issues
9. Lack of standardization issues
10. External events
11. Change in top management
12. Portfolio management issues
13. Collaboration issues
14. Project management maturity issues
15. Work climate issues
Organizational context and changes in supportive and controlling roles
16. Increase in the PMO supportive role 1

October/November 2015 ■
17. Increase in the PMO controlling role 0.265*** 1
18. Project management maturity at the organizational level −0.091 0.021 1
19. Change management 0.118 0.211** 0.173** 1
20. Increase in the organizational culture support to PMO 0.474**** 0.328**** −0.05 0.224*** 1
21. Organization size −0.092 −0.164** 0.249*** −0.024 0.021 1
Impact on performance and maturity
22. Project management performance 0.233*** 0.183** 0.094 0.224*** 0.272*** −0.039
23. Business performance 0.218*** 0.134* 0.089 0.331**** 0.273*** 0.043
24. Project management maturity 0.325**** 0.269*** 0.175** 0.374**** 0.361**** 0.032
Means 0.503 0.436 0.484 0.55 0.506 0.387 0.445 0.424 5.968
Std. dev. 0.502 0.497 0.501 0.499 0.502 0.488 0.498 0.496 1.714
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.34 are in boldface.
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01; ****p < 0.001.
Table A1: (Continued )

Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

39
 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Dependent Variable
Project Management Business Project Management
Performance (A) Performance (B) Maturity (C)
Variables Entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Events as conditions for PMO changes
New PMO manager 0.668 0.689 1.045 0.194 0.138 0.283 −0.015 −0.026 −0.031
New vision and/or new strategy 0.710 0.709 0.923 0.445 0.467 0.663 0.064 0.068 0.027
Competition −0.663 −0.664 −0.441 −0.439 −0.449 0.285 0.076 0.075 0.087
Increase workload 0.511 0.464 0.570 0.179 0.261 0.703 0.103 0.124 0.191
External events 0.438 0.454 0.613 0.672* 0.651* 0.576 0.257** 0.247** 0.244*
Change in top management −0.545 −0.556* −0.697 −0.026 0.001 0.068 −0.127 −0.116 0.011
Issues as conditions for PMO change
Accountability for project issues −0.580 −0.578 −1.237 0.192 0.180 −0.306 −0.002 −0.003 −0.105
Cost of PMO issues 0.147 0.171 0.624 −0.311 −0.389 −0.375 −0.063 −0.079 −0.005
Project performance issues 2.243** 2.245** 2.181* 0.140 0.144 −0.780 0.223* 0.225* 0.159
Business performance issues −0.959 −0.952 −0.726 0.926 0.912 1.654* 0.101 0.095 0.133
Lack of standardization issues −0.195 −0.148 −0.249 −0.096 −0.161 −0.503 0.046 0.038 −0.005
Portfolio management issues 0.069 0.072 −0.048 0.189 0.181 −0.003 0.155 0.150 0.187
Collaboration issues 0.257 0.262 0.532* 0.010 0.009 0.021 0.004 −0.002 0.008
Project management maturity issues 0.031 0.028 −0.234 0.085 0.107 0.039 0.157 0.177 0.157
Work climate issues 0.017 0.014 0.105 −0.033 −0.032 0.114 −0.044 −0.044 −0.044
Moderator
Size of the organization −0.199 −3.125 0.442 −2.412 0.093 0.118
Cross-product with size of the organization
New PMO manager −1.057 −0.856 −0.068
New vision and/or new strategy 0.024 0.265 0.124
Competition −0.366 −1.415 0.032
Increase workload −1.165 −1.304 −0.121
External events −0.454 0.069 0.016
Change in top management 0.063 −0.356 −0.196
Accountability for project issues 1.624 0.756 0.181
Cost of PMO issues −0.491 −0.028 −0.099
Project performance issues −0.176 2.262 0.008
Business performance issues −0.436 −1.583 −0.007
Lack of standardization issues 1.262 1.150 0.124
Portfolio management issues 0.362 0.497 −0.169
Collaboration issues −0.453 −0.007 −0.232
Project management maturity issues 0.785 0.296 0.248
Work climate issues −0.203 −0.262 0.012
R 2 variance explained by each model 0.4118 0.4131 0.5102 0.3442 0.3514 0.4452 0.4280 0.4357 0.5064
R 2 adjusted 0.3431 0.3453 0.3264
Δ R 2 increase in explained variance 0.4118 0.0013 0.0971 0.3442 0.0072 0.0938 0.4280 0.0077 0.0707
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.05 are in boldface.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table A2: Hierarchical logistic regressions with size of the organization.

40 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Dependent Variable
Project Management Business Project Management
Performance (A) Performance (B) Maturity (C)
Variables Entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Events as conditions for PMO changes
New PMO manager 0.668 0.665 0.155 0.194 0.189 0.209 −0.015 −0.020 0.020
New vision and/or new strategy 0.710 0.785 0.624 0.445 0.402 0.365 0.064 0.028 0.013
Competition −0.663 −0.692 −1.283 −0.439 −0.417 −0.345 0.076 0.102 0.205
Increase workload 0.511 0.528 1.147 0.179 0.160 0.420 0.103 0.091 0.063
External events 0.438 0.425 0.159 0.672* 0.688* 0.624 0.257** 0.284** 0.260*
Change in top management −0.545* −0.573* −0.451 −0.026 −0.009 −0.353 −0.127 −0.096 −0.198
Issues as conditions for PMO changes
Accountability for project issues −0.580 −0.624 0.386 0.192 0.217 0.671 −0.002 0.015 −0.096
Cost of PMO issues 0.147 0.169 0.277 −0.311 −0.336 −0.799 −0.063 −0.068 −0.171
Project performance issues 2.243*** 2.295*** 2.326** 0.140 0.122 0.835 0.223* 0.204* 0.281*
Business performance issues −0.959 −0.979 −0.865 0.926 0.920 0.289 0.101 0.098 0.019
Lack of standardization issues −0.195 −0.255 −0.393 −0.096 −0.044 −0.472 0.046 0.081 0.064
Portfolio management issues 0.069 0.066 −0.021 0.189 0.194 0.130 0.155 0.156 0.115
Collaboration issues 0.257 0.257 0.156 0.010 0.017 0.038 0.004 0.008 0.108
Project management maturity issues 0.031 0.043 0.002 0.085 0.076 −0.102 0.157 0.144 −0.114
Work climate issues 0.017 0.016 0.013 −0.033 −0.035 0.048 −0.044 −0.056 0.093
Moderator
Project management maturity in the −0.259 −2.155 0.214 −1.654 0.165* −0.262
organization
Cross-product with project management maturity in the organization
New PMO manager 1.704 0.019 −0.093
New vision and/or new strategy 0.540 0.093 0.023
Competition 1.230 0.123 −0.114
Increased workload −1.656 −0.709 −0.048
External events 0.923 0.120 −0.001
Change in top management −0.571 0.753 0.095
Accountability for project issues −2.440 −1.309 0.121
Cost of PMO issues −0.613 0.414 0.106
Project performance issues 0.955 −1.668 −0.164
Business performance issues 0.129 1.777 0.106
Lack of standardization issues −0.746 0.540 0.035
Portfolio management issues 0.354 0.065 0.009
Collaboration issues 0.010 0.109 −0.021
Project management maturity issues 0.089 0.333 0.777*
Work climate issues −0.088 −0.209 −0.244
R 2 variance explained by each model 0.412*** 0.414*** 0.505** 0.344* 0.346* 0.410 0.428 0.451 0.501
R2 adjusted 0.343*** 0.364*** 0.318***
Δ R 2 increase in explained variance 0.412*** 0.0021 0.091 0.344* 0.002 0.064 0.428*** 0.023* 0.049
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.05 are in boldface.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table A3: Hierarchical logistic regressions with project management maturity in the organization.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 41

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Dependent Variable
Project Management Business Project Management
Performance (A) Performance (B) Maturity (C)
Variable Entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Events as conditions for PMO changes
New PMO manager 1.113* 1.347* 0.200 0.491 −1.077 −0.051 −0.030 −0.022
New vision and/or new strategy 0.761 0.541 0.718 0.541 −1.142 0.103 0.075 0.155
Competition −1.408 −1.765* −0.316 −0.621 −4.672 0.135 0.114 0.250
Increase workload 0.996 0.908 0.744 0.461 2.990 0.155 0.116 0.148
External events 0.439 0.290 0.531 0.441 2.829 0.228* 0.196* 0.191
Change in top management −0.544* −0.616* −0.094 −0.159 1.705 −0.136 −0.133 −0.240
Issues as conditions for PMO changes
Accountability for project issues −0.284 −0.415 0.654 0.536 1.104 −0.030 −0.053 −0.168
Cost of PMO issues 0.512 0.277 −0.201 −0.574 0.525 −0.070 −0.096 −0.208
Project performance issues 2.169** 2.502** 0.128 0.223 0.588 0.160 0.172 0.313
Business performance issues −1.066 −1.324 0.865 0.800 −1.418 0.125 0.110 0.007
Lack of standardization issues 0.439 0.399 0.200 0.181 0.301 0.037 0.024 0.032
Portfolio management issues 0.162 0.224 0.338 0.388* 1.883 0.140 0.139 0.248
Collaboration issues 0.363 0.517* −0.168 0.020 1.054 0.023 0.079 0.031
Project management maturity issues 0.082 0.004 0.114 0.035 1.482 0.134 0.101 −0.222
Work climate issues −0.072 −0.106 0.001 −0.063 −1.727 −0.013 −0.037 −0.072
Moderator
Change management 1.301* 1.446* 19.115 0.178 −0.306
Cross-product with change management
New PMO manager 2.277 −0.033
New vision and/or new strategy 0.431 −0.150
Competition 3.479 −0.159
Increased workload −2.718 −0.067
External events −2.637 −0.020
Change in top management −1.403 0.195
Accountability for projects issues 0.635 0.198
Cost of PMO issues −1.818 0.239
Project performance issues −0.580 −0.233
Business performance issues 3.779 0.093
Lack of standardization issues 0.035 −0.004
Portfolio management issues −1.538 −0.214
Collaboration issues −1.267 −0.184
Project management maturity issues −1.746 1.040*
Work climate issues 2.028* 0.115
R 2 variance explained by each model 0.489*** 0.525*** 0.414*** 0.468*** 0.629*** 0.421 0.445 0.545
R 2 adjusted 0.3206*** 0.341*** 0.346***
Δ R 2 increase in explained variance 0.489*** 0.036** 0.414*** 0.054* 0.162 0.421*** 0.024 0.100
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.05 are in boldface.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table A4: Hierarchical logistic regressions with change management.

42 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Dependent Variable
Project Management Business Project Management Maturity
Performance (A) Performance (B) (C)
Variable Entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Events as conditions for PMO changes
New PMO manager 0.488 0.452 0.134 0.205 0.116 −0.367 −0.017 −0.032 −0.058
New vision and/or new strategy 0.689 0.652 −0.399 0.443 0.495 0.742 0.060 0.051 0.056
Competition −0.378 −0.423 1.059 −0.482 −0.497 0.240 0.082 0.083 0.366**
Increase workload 0.487 0.457 0.861 0.171 0.152 0.504 0.095 0.089 0.098
External events 0.575* 0.518 1.214* 0.692* 0.582* 1.091* 0.250** 0.208* 0.465***
Change in top management −0.675* −0.611* −0.289 −0.114 −0.043 0.077 −0.142 −0.110 −0.137
Issues as conditions for PMO changes
Accountability for project issues −0.592 −0.618 0.033 0.122 0.017 0.862 −0.001 −0.014 −0.098
Cost of PMO issues 0.262 0.255 1.023 −0.276 −0.381 0.356 −0.071 −0.082 −0.183
Project performance issues 2.518*** 2.427*** 0.449 0.089 −0.050 −1.106 0.219* 0.194 0.233
Business performance issues −1.012 −0.968 1.140 1.012 1.100* 1.092 0.100 0.105 0.276
Lack of standardization issues −0.201 −0.314 0.279 −0.152 −0.449 0.279 0.032 −0.005 0.039
Portfolio management issues 0.058 0.034 −0.566 0.231 0.201 −0.100 0.184 0.154 −0.110
Collaboration issues 0.235 0.230 0.176 −0.003 −0.018 −0.117 −0.018 −0.023 0.065
Project maturity issues −0.008 0.002 0.496 0.026 0.020 0.301 0.127 0.138 0.035
Work climate issues −0.008 0.009 0.085 0.015 0.051 −0.049 −0.016 0.003 0.106
Moderator
Increase the organizational sup- 0.475 1.800 0.986 2.655 0.167 0.137
port culture to PMO
Cross-product with increase in the organizational support culture to PMO
New PMO manager 0.418 1.235 0.114
New vision and/or new strategy 1.674 −0.825 0.000
Competition −2.693 −0.893 −0.276
Increased workload 0.299 −0.246 −0.144
External events −0.496 −0.724 −0.363**
Change in top management −0.892 −0.592 0.071
Accountability for project issues −2.179 −0.647 0.100
Cost of PMO issues −1.734 −1.722 0.166
Project performance issues 6.136** 1.721 −0.126
Business performance issues −5.371** 0.386 −0.215
Lack of standardization issues −1.686 −2.526 −0.147
Portfolio management issues 0.912* 0.510 0.385
Collaboration issues 0.318 −0.025 −0.361
Project management maturity −0.858 −0.545 0.512
issues
Work climate issues −0.093 0.316 −0.087
R 2 variance explained by each 0.434*** 0.441*** 0.584*** 0.365* 0.396* 0.477* 0.423 0.444 0.587
model
R 2 adjusted 0.332*** 0.349*** 0.424***
Δ R 2 increase in explained 0.434*** 0.007 0.143 0.365* 0.031 0.081 0.423*** 0.020 0.143*
variance
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.05 are in boldface.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table A5: Hierarchical logistic regressions with increase in the organizational support culture to PMO.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 43

 Project Management Office Transformations
PAPERS

Dependent Variable
Project Management Business Project Management
Performance (A) Performance (B) Maturity (C)
Variable Entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Events as conditions for PMO change
New PMO manager 0.507 0.490 0.922 0.143 0.159 −0.293 −0.021 −0.020 −0.117
New vision and/or new strategy 0.753 0.578 0.282 0.430 0.303 0.906 0.060 0.018 −0.005
Competition −0.498 −0.487 0.499 −0.381 −0.346 1.033 0.080 0.085 0.305*
Increase workload 0.603 0.429 0.561 0.206 0.060 −0.621 0.105 0.071 0.109
External events 0.519 0.503 −0.010 0.664* 0.654* 1.490* 0.250** 0.236* 0.424**
Change in top management −0.697* −0.674* 0.099 −0.078 −0.080 0.122 −0.147 −0.130 −0.105
Issues as conditions for PMO changes
Accountability for project issues −0.678 −0.789 −4.204 0.160 0.067 −1.668 −0.008 −0.030 −0.052
Cost of PMO issues 0.289 0.426 0.854 −0.305 −0.267 −0.005 −0.073 −0.063 −0.176
Project performance issues 2.628*** 2.689*** 2.461 0.198 0.234 0.854 0.224* 0.227* 0.240
Business performance issues −1.214 −1.008 3.580 0.863 1.025 1.900 0.093 0.127 0.282
Lack of standardization issues −0.115 −0.269 −0.417 −0.091 −0.183 0.240 0.041 0.017 0.037
Portfolio management issues 0.077 0.037 −0.730 0.204 0.181 −0.022 0.184 0.160 0.065
Collaboration issues 0.263 0.225 1.386 −0.008 −0.028 −0.246 −0.014 −0.044 −0.153
Project maturity issues −0.025 −0.026 0.154 0.051 0.024 0.156 0.126 0.114 0.055
Work climate issues −0.013 0.000 −0.137 −0.021 −0.015 0.077 −0.022 −0.013 0.067
Moderator
Increase the PMO supportive role 1.094* 7.117 0.745 1.634 0.200* −0.064
Cross-product with project increases the PMO supportive role
New PMO manager −0.851 0.317 0.114
New vision and/or new strategy 0.413 −1.460 −0.048
Competition −1.679 −2.452 −0.395*
Increased workload −0.066 0.449 −0.206
External events 0.659 −1.194 −0.296*
Change in top management −1.195 −0.104 0.160
Accountability for project issues 4.068 2.482 −0.018
Cost of PMO issues −1.026 −1.029 0.116
Project performance issues 1.622 −0.873 −0.111
Business performance issues −6.540** −1.106 −0.265
Lack of standardization issues −1.045 −0.997 0.047
Portfolio management issues 0.989 0.302 0.040
Collaboration issues −1.183 0.383 0.314
Project management maturity issues −0.391 −0.275 0.554
Work climate issues 0.271 −0.022 −0.118
R 2 variance explained by each model 0.431*** 0.465*** 0.560** 0.331** 0.351** 0.470* 0.418 0.449 0.557
R 2 adjusted 0.329*** 0.358*** 0.390***
Δ R2 increase in explained variance 0.431*** 0.034* 0.132 0.331** 0.019 0.120 0.418*** 0.031* 0.108
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.05 are in boldface.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table A6: Hierarchical logistic regressions with increased PMO supportive role.

44 October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Dependent Variable
Project Management Business Project Management
Performance (A) Performance (B) Maturity (C)
Variable Entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Events as conditions for PMO changes
New PMO manager 0.534 0.639 0.191 0.274 0.388 0.297 −0.022 −0.024 −0.001
New vision and/or new strategy 0.792 1.011 1.155 0.350 0.600 0.662 0.048 0.043 0.104
Competition −0.544 −0.576 −0.229 −0.262 −0.270 0.606 0.088 0.088 0.217
Increase workload 0.547 0.708 0.849 0.064 0.254 0.683 0.112 0.109 0.062
External events 0.445 0.454 0.209 0.705* 0.739* 0.755 0.281** 0.281** 0.426**
Change in top management −0.639* −0.688* −0.453 −0.072 −0.092 −0.088 −0.166 −0.164 −0.282*
Issues as conditions for PMO change
Accountability for project issues −0.751 −0.843 −0.694 0.323 0.289 0.322 0.012 0.013 0.098
Cost of PMO issues 0.258 0.215 0.056 −0.232 −0.239 −0.501 −0.062 −0.061 −0.225
Project performance issues 2.543*** 2.688*** 2.064* 0.268 0.286 0.886 0.235 0.234 0.360*
Business performance issues −1.086 −1.172 −0.451 0.778 0.788 1.602* 0.068 0.068 0.089
Lack of standardization issues −0.129 −0.177 −0.260 −0.172 −0.195 −0.749 0.043 0.043 −0.008
Portfolio management issues 0.034 0.029 0.117 0.196 0.193 0.288 0.220* 0.220* 0.065
Collaboration issues 0.323 0.341 0.489 −0.045 −0.047 −0.339 −0.056 −0.057 −0.115
Project maturity issues 0.038 0.032 −0.085 0.065 0.067 0.062 0.087 0.087 0.033
Work climate issues −0.009 −0.020 0.022 0.004 −0.008 −0.113 −0.022 −0.021 0.124
Moderator
Increase the PMO controlling role −0.506 −5.601 −0.631 −3.904 0.013 −0.583
Cross-product with increase in the PMO controlling role
New PMO manager 2.844 1.086 −0.009
New vision and/or new strategy −1.036 0.636 −0.049
Competition −2.865 −2.818 −0.241
Increase workload −0.117 0.112 0.090
External events 1.132 −0.010 −0.242
Change in top management −2.263 0.292 0.094
Accountability for project issues −3.808 −0.574 −0.167
Cost of PMO issues −0.716 0.127 0.263
Project performance issues 7.184 −1.336 −0.077
Business performance issues −4.568 −1.300 −0.134
Lack of standardization issues 1.334 2.373 0.139
Portfolio management issues 0.411 −0.319 0.354
Collaboration issues 0.104 0.604 0.427
Project management maturity issues 0.190 0.083 0.206
Work climate issues 0.099 0.238 −0.322
R 2 variance explained by each model 0.438*** 0.445*** 0.560*** 0.343** 0.355** 0.477* 0.427 0.428 0.535
R2 adjusted 0.338*** 0.331*** 0.354***
Δ R 2 increase in explained variance 0.438** 0.007 0.115 0.343** 0.012 0.122 0.427*** 0.000 0.107
Note. Correlation coefficients above 0.05 are in boldface.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table A7: Hierarchical logical regressions with increased PMO controlling role.

October/November 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 45