Exploring the Connections Between Project Management Offices and Organizational Design

Abstract

Introduction

This special issue, “Project Management Offices and Organizational Design: In Honor of Monique Aubry,” explores linkages between project management offices (PMOs) and organizational design. Although research on PMOs has been part of the project studies landscape for some decades now, it started from practical inquiries, continuing into describing these organizational entities, their functions, and how they contributed to delivering projects efficiently. The interrelations between PMOs and organizational design are still undertheorized and scant, yet promising given the importance of the context, organizational framing, resources, and capabilities deployed for conducting projects (Müller et al., 2019). Thus, we took this opportunity to assemble this special issue, which contains several articles that seek to develop these topics further and pave the way for new insightful research. Research on PMOs provides a good example of the progress made in recent decades in the area of project studies, reflected in both scholarly inquiries and management practice. Advances in the field call for novel contributions, and we hope this special issue will even further contribute to cross-fertilization between project studies and organizational theories.

PMOs were first described as organizational entities performing a certain set of functions (Hill, 2008; Hobbs & Aubry, 2010) and corresponding to different typologies (Aubry & Brunet, 2016). Two main research questions guided the early work. The first pertained to describing PMOs and what they do. The performance of such entities (Dai & Wells, 2004) was mainly explored using a positivist approach. This stream of research was (largely) influenced by practitioners experiencing frequent changes in the PMO (Hurt & Thomas, 2009; Pellegrinelli & Garagna, 2009), which encouraged, in the professional literature, maintenance of a duality of right and wrong PMOs (Hatfield, 2008). While these studies helped understand what PMOs are and what they do, it became clear that the field would benefit from a broader perspective and deeper insights.

It took time to move away from the positivist approach and explore the PMO as a social and dynamic phenomenon within broader management and organizational studies (Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018; Bredillet et al., 2018). This view suggested that approaching PMOs from the perspective of project organizing might be very fruitful. The PMO, as an organizational unit, enabled a number of practices that could generate insight and understanding in areas such as knowledge management, governance, change management, benefits management, performance, and relations among actors.

Moving in this direction required recognition that the PMO was a socially constructed entity that changed over time. Several theoretical perspectives appeared helpful in exploring the social construction of PMOs, including organizational design theory, interorganizational networks, institutional theory, practice-based and processual theories, contingency theory, and complexity theory, among others. This work prompted researchers to take on new perspectives, including the following:

Expanding the view of PMOs by drawing upon organizational and management studies such as an organizational design perspective (c.f., Miterev, Turner, & Mancini, 2017; Miterev et al., 2020).

Implementing methodological insights to conduct such studies within organizations. The notion of engaged scholars resonates with the work carried out in this field of study, and it would be interesting and useful to reflect on how researchers and practitioners can mutually benefit from knowledge exchange (Brunet et al., 2020).

Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, enhancing a pluralistic understanding (through pluralist theoretical framework) of organizational design and PMOs that recognizes the need to accommodate complexity and diverse stakeholder interests and adapt to varying project management needs across different parts of the organization (Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018; Aubry, Richer, Lavoie-Tremblay, & Cyr, 2011).

Three broad realizations have emerged from these research developments. First, a more inclusive conceptualization of the PMO as a dynamic and socially constructed entity can enrich our understanding of various complex organizational phenomena. For example, Aubry, Müller, and Glückler (2011) explored PMOs through the theoretical lens of community of practice. Second, PMOs, rather than being isolated organizational units, are embedded within a wider array of management and governance layers (Müller et al., 2019), calling for a deeper understanding of their interactions and consequences. Finally, utilizing the organizational design perspective for studying project settings both strengthens the theoretical foundation of project studies and provides an opportunity for project scholars to contribute to general organization and management studies.

Organizational Design in Project Studies and Beyond

Originating from early work in strategy (e.g., Chandler, 1962) and organization theory (e.g. Mintzberg, 1983), organizational design has been mostly concerned with how organizations are shaped and adapted to manage collective efforts optimally. Organizational design refers to “the structures of accountability and responsibility used to develop and implement strategies, and the human resource practices and information and business processes that activate those structures” (Greenwood & Miller, 2010, p. 78). Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay (2018) offer an interesting overview of the main literature on this topic, highlighting the main theoretical approaches mobilized (historical, contingency, social theory, and pluralism); they argue that organizational design is not only about structures, but also related to processes and prone to evolutions and change. A structured review about the organizational design perspective on the project-based organization led Miterev, Turner, and Mancini (2017, p. 532) to conclude that this literature “pays limited attention to the phenomenon of the project-based organization.”

Within project studies, the organizational design perspective has been mobilized to examine phenomena in a broad range of settings, including PMOs, programs, interorganizational projects, and project-based organizations, as suggested by Miterev (2024). Early work in project studies tackling organizational design addressed mostly project management structures, such as the matrix organization (e.g., Larson & Gobeli, 1987; Hobbs & Ménard, 1993), which was initially examined by scholars in organization theory (Galbraith, 1971; Katz & Allen, 1985). Other early research in project studies investigated the temporary nature of project organizations (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; de Waard & Kramer, 2008) and how they can act as a time-limited network (Hellgren & Stjernberg, 1995). Midler (1995) conducted research on the relations between project management models and the permanent organization, leading him to articulate the concept of the “projectification” of the firm, which has gained in diffusion since then (e.g., Lundin, 2016; Hodgson et al., 2019).

From this point, three distinctive streams seem to have emerged at the intersection of organizational design and projects. First, is organizational project management (Müller et al., 2019), which emerged in the early 2000s with the recognition that managing projects and programs has a strong relation to organizational strategy (Aubry, 2023). This stream focuses on how organizations articulate their internal functions to deliver multiple projects, using PMOs as tools for enhanced performance (Aubry, Sicotte, Drouin, Vidot-Delerue, & Besner, 2012; Aubry & Brunet, 2016). Structural design for decision-making and reporting mechanisms are central to this stream (Geraldi, 2008), which also addresses how change and transitions bring evolutions and sometimes the termination of such structures (Aubry, Hobbs, Müller, & Blomquist, 2010). Studies on project-based organizations as a specific type have been conducted (Hobday, 2000; Miterev, Mancini, & Turner, 2017; Söderlund & Tell, 2009). The managerial competences and leadership needed to drive such structures toward increased competitiveness has been conceptualized by Jerbrant and Gustavsson (2013) who argued that it requires both flexibility and structure to manage project portfolios. Other studies on the required leadership include the early work of Keegan and Den Hartog (2004), resource allocation and conflict management (Laslo & Goldberg, 2008), and governmentality (Müller, 2017, Simard et al., 2018).

The second stream that we can identify combining organizational design and projects relates specifically to the architecture of megaprojects (complex projects of more than US$1 billion), notably in the construction industry. Early works on this topic include Morris and Hough (1987) and Flyvbjerg et al. (2003). The institutional anchoring of such megaprojects is important to address (Sanderson, 2012) how public and private parties collaborate (Van Marrewijk et al., 2008), as well as the importance of soft skills to enhance collaboration (Eriksson & Kadefors, 2017). Denicol et al. (2021) conceptualized the organizational design of megaprojects through distinctive (multi)levels, from intra- to interorganizational design, and ultimately to system-level design. Other research addressed more specifically the organizational design of the owner for mega industrial construction projects (Sun & Zhang, 2011; Eren, 2019). The implications of organizational design for megaprojects are still emerging as researchers study distinctive forms of governance, for example polycentric governance (Gil & Fu, 2021) or related to interorganizational projects (Fernandes et al., 2023). From the literature reviewed, we found that the role of PMOs for conducting such projects is still undertheorized.

The third stream, which partly extends along the former, concerns organizational design for multiorganizational projects and networks. In general organization theory, studies have addressed how collaborative networks become an innovation to organization design and management (Soda & Zaheer, 2012; Shuman & Twombly, 2010); Clement and Puranam (2018) argue that formal organizational design should guide the implementation of networks. In the realm of project studies, Fu et al. (2022) looked at organizational design for transnational interorganizational projects. While focusing on projects in the construction industry, Di Vincenzo and Mascia (2012) explored the role of social capital, emphasizing that the role of network cohesion and network range could enhance project performance. Some studies have been conducted at the intersection of organizational design, governance of interorganizational projects, and networks (see, for example, Müller et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). Multiproject management in interorganizational contexts has been explored by Martinsuo and Ahola (2022). In this research stream, again, the role of PMOs has been largely understudied, with some notable exceptions such as Braun (2018), who suggested an interplay of PMOs and network administrative organizations as possible configurations for interorganizational project networks.

Obviously, these streams sometimes overlap, the contours might be blurred, and the relationships with organizational design and PMOs are still too complex to understand fully. For example, the term organizational design has at least two distinct connotations, perplexing the connections between organizational design and the PMO. The first connotation refers to the research field itself. With this connotation, organizational design represents a suite of theoretical perspectives and a research agenda concerning antecedents and consequences of various organizational patterns. Hence, a PMO plays the role of a research object, an organizational entity to be scrutinized through the lens of organizational design. The second connotation refers to an organizational design of a particular organization, as a depiction of characteristic organizational patterns reflected in structures, culture, and processes (Galbraith, 2009). In such a case, a PMO instead represents a constituent element of an organizational design.

This special issue was initiated as a way to celebrate the work and contributions of Monique Aubry in project studies. A pioneer in the research on PMOs at an international level, Monique Aubry has had a deep influence on the field of project studies over the past decades. This special issue aimed to solicit contributions on the following themes to explore the connections between PMOs and organizational design:

Novel conceptualizations of PMOs;

The interplay between PMOs and other core concepts in project studies, such as project governance;

Original empirical settings for applying the organizational design perspective, such as interorganizational project networks, organizational project management, or multipartner programs;

(Multi-)theoretical foundations underpinning the notion of organizational design in project studies; and

New methodological approaches to study organizational design and PMOs in different settings such as action research and engaged scholarship.

We welcomed both conceptual and empirical contributions, inspired by the notion of theoretical pluralism advocated by Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay (2018) and Aubry et al. (2022), leading to a balanced mix of qualitative, quantitative, and conceptual articles from different theoretical and methodological traditions. The guest editors have neither reviewed nor edited their own articles—for these articles, the review process was handled by another editor. We briefly present the eight articles included in this special issue and discuss the main overarching themes, contributions, and ways forward. The articles are presented in a spectrum, progressing from an intraorganizational focus to wider interorganizational aspects. The last article, “A Retrospective of Monique Aubry’s Contributions,” by Monique Aubry and Viviane Sergi (2024) presents a retrospective account of Monique Aubry’s career and future insights for research; it is also a novel category of articles in Project Management Journal® (PMJ) called “Meet the Person.”

Presentation of the Special Issue Articles

In the first article, “It Takes Two to Tango: The Interactive Effect of Project Portfolio Management Offices and Voice Behavior on Project Portfolio Management Quality and Business Success,” the research by Alexander Kock, Bastian Ekrot, and Hans Georg Gemünden (2024) explores the role of employee voice behavior in the relationship between project portfolio management offices (PPMOs) and business success. A PPMO relates to a centralized organizational unit that supports a project portfolio’s stakeholders in managing the collection of multiple projects. Voice behavior is defined as “discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning” (Morrison, 2011, p. 375). The authors use an empirical base of 255 project portfolios involving 1,576 informants. For each project portfolio, the portfolio managers assessed PPMO contributions, the portfolio decision makers assessed outcomes, and several project managers (median of three per portfolio) assessed voice behavior. The results show that PPMO contributions and voice behavior leverage each other. Without sufficient project employee voice behavior, higher PPMO contributions are not associated with project portfolio management (PPM) quality and vice versa. PPM quality, in turn, positively relates to business success. Voice behavior also strengthens the relationship between PPM quality and business success. The findings highlight the significant role of employee voice behavior in project environments, suggesting that structural mechanisms and the empowerment of individuals should be adopted to foster the achievement of organizational goals.

The second article, “Knowledge Entrainment in Large-Scale Transformation Projects: The Evidence-Based Strategy and the Innovation-Based Strategy,” by Sofia Pemsel and Jonas Söderlund (2024), explores how temporary PMOs entrain knowledge integration processes in large-scale transformation projects through a comparative study of two cases in the healthcare sector, one in North America and one in Northern Europe. Defining knowledge entrainment as “the adjustment of the pace or sequence of a knowledge process to match or synchronize with that of another knowledge process” (Pemsel & Söderlund, 2024, p. 490), they articulate that PMOs act as enablers of knowledge entrainment and integration in projects. The two studied projects were relatively similar in terms of vision, funding, duration, contractual design, and challenges in solving their task, yet they were fundamentally different regarding how they integrated and entrained knowledge. Their inductive analysis identifies several knowledge entrainment triggers, practices, and outcomes for the two cases. They uncover two distinct knowledge entrainment strategies: the evidence-based strategy and the innovation-based strategy. To illustrate: “The politicians ordered the North American project to navigate knowledge complexities with the help of ‘evidence’ whereas the politicians commanded the Northern European project to break free from the past and create a future-oriented hospital, i.e., they were explicitly aiming for innovation and for exploring somewhat unknown territories” (Pemsel & Söderlund, 2024, p. 494). This article contributes to enriching our understanding of the dynamic synchronization of multiple knowledge processes in a complex temporary organizational setting, highlighting the central role of a PMO.

The third article, “The Mandate of Project Management Offices Beyond Organizational Boundaries—Still a Blind Spot for Organizational Design?” by Timo Braun and Jörg Sydow (2024) is conceptual. Illustrated with data from the air cargo industry, the authors provide an overview of recent developments in PMO practice and research and discuss the challenges that arise from interorganizational collaboration across organizational boundaries for traditional PMOs. Theoretically anchored in organizational design as a practice, the question asked is: To what extent should such collaboration be supported by PMOs? The authors propose a typology of PMO designs addressing an interorganizational perspective around four types, which could be conceived over a continuum: Type I: A PMO with a solely intraorganizational mandate; Type II: A PMO with an intraorganizational mandate and small experiments with external partners; Type III: A PMO with singular, established activities in interorganizational settings; and Type IV: A PMO embedded in interorganizational relations. Given these possible configurations, the authors explore the possibilities and difficulties in designing PMOs for interorganizational contexts. More specifically, they identify four functions that should be considered when designing and managing a PMO across organizational boundaries: selecting partners for collaboration; regulating interorganizational collaboration; allocating tasks, resources, and responsibilities; and evaluating interorganizational collaboration. For each function, current barriers and bridging practices are presented, along with illustrative evidence based on citations from 13 interviews conducted in the air cargo industry. The main contribution of this article is to broaden the scope of the PMO and present it as embedded in interorganizational relations, to envisage organizational designs that capture what PMOs are beyond traditional organizational boundaries.

The fourth article by Ralf Müller and Linzhuo Wang (2024), “A Taxonomy of Project Management Offices and Their Organizational Project Management Landscapes,” is based on 265 responses to a global survey on PMOs. The research question asked is: What are the particular OPM (organizational project management) landscape profiles associated with different combinations of PMO service delivery scope and frequency? Using an organizational design perspective, this study models nine different PMO types in terms of service provision and the frequency of PMO service delivery involvement. Factor analyses validated the measurement constructs of the OPM model and elements, originally conceptualized by Müller et al. (2019). Mapping the PMO types against their particular OPM landscape profiles showed “the particular combination of different levels of expression of OPM elements constituting the context of a PMO type” (Müller & Wang, 2024, p. 521). The analysis showed the popularity of PMOs with the highest service levels and frequent involvement in projects. The six most popular landscape types out of nine are discussed in detail and categorized into three groups (called regions) of different underlying organizational design archetypes, namely PMOs in OPM contexts non-supportive of project work, PMOs in OPM contexts that provide rudimentary support for projects, and PMOs in the context of the highest levels of organizational support for delivering projects. This study contributes to the current literature by showing the link between OPM designs and PMO designs and offers practical avenues for organizations that need to design appropriate levels of OPM implementation.

The fifth article by Maxim Miterev (2024), “Raison d’Etre of Organization Design Arrangements in Project-Based Organizations,” is conceptual. The research question is “Why are certain organization design arrangements enacted in project-based organizations?” Drawing upon extant literature, the author discerns three core organization design logics, which can simultaneously coexist and interact. First, the functional logic is driven by this question: What organization design arrangements are needed to coordinate projects effectively? It builds on the implicit premise that projects generally display certain inherent limitations as an organizational form, hence organization design arrangements are enacted to compensate for such weaknesses and/or harness the firm’s strategic opportunities. Second, the overarching question of the legitimacy logic is: What organization design arrangements are expected by the environment? The guiding principle suggests that organizational design arrangements of project-based organizations serve to gain legitimacy, for example by conforming to powerful isomorphic mechanisms. Third, the agency logic adds personal success, power, and career considerations with this question: What organization design arrangements benefit managers personally? The guiding principle of this logic is that enacting certain organizational design elements can be shaped by the preferences of powerful actors, having implications for organizational politics and careers of individual managers. Further, conceiving the three rationales as interacting logics of organizing, the author explains how mobilizing the notion of logic multiplicity can help advance future theorizing. While the article’s main focus is on the project-based organization, this work also addresses how key results and theoretical ideas can be applied in other project-related settings such as interorganizational projects, programs, and PMOs. In turn, drawing on logic multiplicity allows for theorizing about diverse empirical settings, giving a nuanced and situated understanding of organizational design determinants.

The sixth article by Carolina Melecardi Zani, Juliano Denicol, and Tim Broyd (2024), “The Four Coordination Roles of Clients When Designing Megaproject Organizations,” is conceptual. Referring to the organizational design definition proposed by Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay (2018), the authors unpack organizations as a structure (the thing), comprising the materiality of it, such as organizational charts and physical spaces, but also organizations as an action, as the active process of design (the designing). They address specifically how organizational design could help megaprojects, as their complexity significantly raises coordination issues. They review existing organizational design models in the general literature, which focus on permanent organizations, for example: the Star Model (Galbraith, 2009), the Organizational Configurational Model (Mintzberg, 1989); the 7S Model (Waterman et al., 1980); and also on temporary organizations such as the Congruence Model (Nadler & Tushman, 1980). Arguing that those models are limited regarding our understanding of megaproject design, they raise this research question: What are the coordination roles of clients when designing megaproject organizations? The authors conceptualize coordination as “a bridge between the two sides of the organizational design (i.e., artifact and action), promoting the constant alignment between design and process, often related to the constant remapping of organizational design in megaprojects” (Zani et al., 2024, p. 562). Illustrating their arguments with megaprojects, such as Crossrail, Thames Tideway Tunnel, and High Speed Two in London, they articulate four coordination roles for the client organization: the meta-organizer, the gatekeeper, the interface manager, and the mediator. The authors discuss how certain roles predominate over others throughout the megaproject’s phases as the system evolves dynamically over time; they also formulate three propositions related to coordination roles in megaprojects and discuss how their model enriches the existing models for megaprojects.

The seventh article, “Interorganizational Design for Collaborative Governance in Co-Owned Major Projects: An Engaged Scholarship Approach,” by Maude Brunet, Marie-Claude Petit, and Alejandro Romero-Torres (2023), explores how interorganizational design for collaborative governance in co-owned major projects could enhance project performance. Based on an engaged scholarship approach with a group of practitioners facing a significant challenge regarding collaborative governance of a major transportation project in North America, the researchers set out to identify the type of interorganizational design most suitable for collaborative governance. As the governance of projects co-owned by several organizations has barely been explored in project studies, the research questions posed are: What are the main mechanisms for collaborative governance in a co-owned major project? How can co-owner organizations of a particular major project adopt an interorganizational design suitable for collaborative governance? The project had five governmental and municipal stakeholders, each of which had political accountability, were co-owners, and needed to play a role in decision-making. An iterative approach was used (Iterations A, B, and C), involving three rounds of meetings (eight in total) with five practitioners involved from one of those organizations. A framework of collaborative governance for major projects is developed, which includes four types of mechanisms: sensemaking, structural, procedural, and relational. An important finding relates to how these types of governance mechanisms should be linked and build upon one another. Notably, the sensemaking mechanism is seen as a mandatory prerequisite to creating a common vision for a project and facilitates its governance among co-owner organizations. The contribution is to theoretically reflect on interorganizational designs adapted to co-owned projects and offer a practical tool that can help practitioners analyze a major project and establish and operationalize collaborative governance.

The eighth and final article, “A Retrospective of Monique Aubry’s Contributions,” is an original retrospective of Monique Aubry’s career, accomplishments, and reflexive account (Aubry & Sergi, 2024). Written by herself and Viviane Sergi, Monique relates her professional trajectory, from a project practitioner to becoming a scholar. She highlights that remaining closely connected to practitioners has helped her to pursue theoretically relevant research while being anchored in real-life problematics. Originally working on PMOs during her doctoral studies, she multiplied research streams and collaborations. The six research themes the authors highlight are: project management offices program, organizational design and governance, megaprojects, benefits management, extreme situations, and temporalities and time-space. The article presents Monique’s main contributions over the years, suggesting interesting ways to continue her work. The last part of the article is Viviane Sergi interviewing Monique Aubry to get a deeper sense of her reflexivity regarding what she has accomplished—about the “crafting of an artisan.”

Discussion

Considering the special issue contributions as a whole, several overarching themes emerge. While some articles can be firmly associated with one theme, a few of them cut across several themes.

Theme 1. Exploring the Diversity of PMO Functions and Outcomes in Various Settings

Contributions to the special issue present a sophisticated picture of what functions PMOs can successfully deliver, which organizational contexts they pertain to, and how they influence organizational outcomes. While previous literature has mainly focused on support, change management, and knowledge management as key PMO functions (e.g., Pellegrinelli & Garagna, 2009; Pemsel & Wiewora, 2013), studies included in this special issue suggest a broader perspective. Specifically, a PMO mandate can extend to managing a collection of multiple projects via a range of coordination, controlling, and supporting activities (Kock et al., 2024), and even to orchestrating interorganizational relationships (Braun & Sydow, 2024). Overall, PMOs vary greatly in the scope and frequency of service provision for different OPM configurations (Müller & Wang, 2024). Thus, through the suggested typology (Braun & Sydow, 2024), taxonomy (Müller & Wang, 2024), and an investigation of an under-researched specific type of PMO (i.e., project portfolio management office [PPMO]), this special issue offers a more nuanced and comprehensive mapping of PMO variety. In addition, these studies touch upon the link between the PMO and organizational performance by discussing the fit between PMO type and its context (Braun & Sydow, 2024; Müller & Wang, 2024) and by showing that the PPMO contribution to business success is contingent on employee voice behavior (Kock et al., 2024).

Consequently, studies within this theme significantly enhance our understanding of PMO versatility and its contribution to organizational performance under various organizational conditions (c.f., Aubry et al., 2009).

Theme 2. Enhancing the Theoretical and Conceptual Toolkit for Understanding PMOs

Apart from revealing the diversity of PMO forms and outcomes, articles included in this special issue enrich the theoretical and conceptual apparatus for studying and understanding PMOs. In particular, Kock et al. (2024) introduce voice behavior (Morrison, 2011) as a new, previously overlooked concept into studies of PMO performance. By showing that voice behavior leverages PPMO contributions the authors bring to the fore employees’ information behavior as a central explanans of PMO outcomes. Similarly, Pemsel and Söderlund (2024) move beyond static knowledge integration frameworks by advancing the notion of knowledge entrainment (Söderlund, 2010) to capture dynamic, processual knowledge synchronization processes in temporary PMOs. Finally, Braun and Sydow (2024) advocate employing a practice-based lens informed by structurationist ideas (Giddens, 1984) to advance the research on PMOs.

Collectively, studies within this theme pave the way for future fine-grained investigations of human-related aspects in PMOs, including processual properties of knowledge synchronizing, employee empowerment and social dynamics, as well as structuration of organizational practices, routines, and boundaries.

Theme 3. Rethinking Organizational Design in Specific Contexts

The third theme concerns employing the organizational design lens to study new empirical settings. While the organizational design perspective has been mobilized to examine phenomena in a broad range of settings, including PMOs, programs, interorganizational projects, and project-based organizations (Miterev, 2024), the articles in this special issue extend it further. Zani et al. (2024) discuss how the classic models of organizational design fall short to provide an understanding of megaproject design and underscore the coordination roles of clients for designing megaproject organizations. In turn, Brunet et al. (2023) investigate a distinct empirical setting of co-owned major projects, revealing the types and roles of collaborative governance mechanisms for enhanced project performance and coining the term interorganizational design.

Taken together, articles within this theme contribute to the literature by drawing attention to the collaborative, multi-actor character of designing organizations that span organizational boundaries (c.f., Braun & Sydow, 2024; Brunet et al., 2023; Zani et al., 2024).

Theme 4. Understanding/Resolving Conceptual Tensions in Organizational Design

As a testimony to the inherent complexity of organizational design challenges, articles in the special issue grapple with understanding and resolving various conceptual tensions. For instance, Miterev (2024) contemplates the utility of paradox theory and institutional logic complexity perspective as potential ways for understanding tensions between competing logics of organizing in project-based organizations, aimed at securing effective coordination, external legitimacy, or managers’ vested interests, respectively. Furthermore, Zani et al. (2024) highlight a central role of client-driven coordination serving as a bridge between megaproject organization design as the thing and designing as the process (c.f., Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018).

Consequently, studies within this theme contribute to the literature by taking stock of recent research advances and potential takes on such fundamental tensions as between static and dynamic, permanent and temporary, as well as among competing theories in the spirit of embracing theoretical pluralism (c.f., Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018; Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011).

Theme 5. Offering Methodological and Theoretical Innovations in Studying Organizational Design

Finally, articles included in this special issue respond to the calls for employing new methodological approaches to study organizational design in project settings and furthering (multi-) theoretical foundations underpinning this notion in project studies. Specifically, Brunet et al. (2023) contribute to our understanding of an engaged scholarship approach by providing a detailed account of an iterative process of knowledge coproduction to address real-life organizational design challenges. Miterev (2024) discusses how the notion of logic multiplicity can be employed as a meta-theoretical framework to make sense of coexisting demands on behaviors of organizational actors. Finally, Braun and Sydow (2024) point out the untapped potential of structurationist ideas to approach the various organizational design challenges of PMOs in interorganizational settings, that is, studying a duality of structure and agency implicated in practices. Altogether, the special issue contributions build on and extend the intellectual legacy of Monique Aubry regarding pluralistic understanding of PMOs and organizational design. They affirm PMOs and organizational design as fruitful, topical research streams in project studies, illuminate their empirical and theoretical challenges, and offer a rich set of theories and conceptualizations to enhance our understanding of the phenomena.

Future Research Avenues

Reflecting on the future lines of inquiry mentioned in the articles included in this special issue, and, likewise, taking note of what they did not mention, we suggest some blind spots that could be pursued in future research.

Project Management Offices

PMOs for megaprojects. Considering the sheer complexity of megaproject settings, how does it affect PMO core functions and coordination mechanisms? Do various organizations engaged in a megaproject create their own PMOs and if so, how are the roles in such networks of PMOs negotiated and evolve over time?

Actor- and practice-based perspectives on PMOs. Given the power of actor- and practice-based perspectives demonstrated by contributions to this special issue, future studies can enhance our understanding on who designs PMOs and why and how are they designed. How do people act, what are the soft skills needed, how is leadership enacted, and how does working in a PMO facilitate managers to gain power and higher executive positions?

PMO landscapes. Given the multitude of PMO types highlighted in this special issue, how do they overlap and interact? Which set of variables can be used to characterize a PMO and its fit for purpose in relation to various organizational tasks?

PMOs as catalysts for innovation. In what ways do PMOs serve as conduits for integrating emerging technologies into the broader organizational context, ensuring alignment with strategic objectives and stakeholder interests to create value? In what ways could PMOs inform strategic decision-making and capability development, fostering continuous improvement and adaptation regarding the evolving organizational dynamics and project complexity (Aubry & Simard, 2023)?

Organizational Design

Organizational design in idiosyncratic contexts. What can we learn from organizational design processes and outcomes in idiosyncratic contexts such as extreme contexts (Hällgren et al., 2017), crisis management (Unterhitzenberger et al., 2024), exploratory projects (Lenfle, 2016), and high-reliability organizations (Roberts, 1990; Bierly et al., 2008)?

Organizational design for grand challenges. How should the underlying value systems, coordination mechanisms, and organizational forms transform to make projects relevant for the needed acceleration of environmental and societal transitions (c.f., Engwall et al., 2021; Ika & Munro, 2022)?

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises and challenges for organizational design in project settings. How does the temporary nature and importance of contextuality in projects affect applicability of algorithmic management and AI-powered predictive analytics (c.f., Müller et al., 2024; Galbraith, 2012)?

While our suggestions for future inquiry are presented in two distinct sections, we also want to emphasize that it is mostly the connections between PMOs and organizational design that still need to be studied and theoretically unpacked. As argued previously, the role of PMOs regarding several organizational design arrangements—for example megaprojects, interorganizational, and network collaborations—has yet to be conceptually and empirically articulated. In this way, this will deepen our understanding of organizational design and make it possible for our scientific community to contribute to the more general literature on this topic.

This editorial followed the Danish philosopher Søren Kirkegård’s rule of understanding the past to project the future. We explored the past, present, and future of research on PMOs and organizational design out of respect to Monique Aubry and her many contributions, which have left a long-lasting impact on our understanding of this subject.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Maude Brunet

Maxim Miterev

Sanaa El Boukri

References

Aubry

. (2023). Four research strategies for studying organizational project management. In Winch

G. M.

Brunet

Cao

(Eds.), Research handbook on complex project organizing (pp. 203–212). Edward Elgar.

Aubry

Brunet

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

Aubry

Hobbs

Müller

Blomquist

. (2010). Identifying forces driving PMO changes. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 30–45.

Aubry

Hobbs

Thuillier

. (2009). The contribution of the project management office to organisational performance. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 141–148.

Aubry

Lavoie-Tremblay

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

Aubry

Müller

Glückler

. (2011). Exploring PMOs through community of practice theory. Project Management Journal, 42(5), 42–56.

Aubry

Richer

M.-C.

Lavoie-Tremblay

Cyr

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

Aubry

Richer

M. C.

Lavoie-Tremblay

Fortin

Fortin Verreault

J. F

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

Aubry

Sergi

. (2024). An artisan at work: A retrospective of Monique Aubry’s contributions. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 599–611.

10.

Aubry

Sicotte

Drouin

Vidot-Delerue

Besner

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

11.

Aubry

Simard

. (2023). The project management office: Governing at the interface of temporary and permanent. In Müller

Sankaran

Drouin

(Eds.), Research handbook for the governance of projects (pp. 124–137). Edward Elgar Publishing

12.

Bierly

P. E.

Gallagher

Spender

J. C

. (2008). Innovation and learning in high-reliability organizations: A case study of United States and Russian nuclear attack submarines, 1970–2000. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 393–408.

13.

Braun

. (2018). Configurations for interorganizational project networks: The interplay of the PMO and network administrative organization. Project Management Journal, 49(4), 53–61.

14.

Braun

Sydow

. (2024). The mandate of project management offices beyond organizational boundaries—Still a blind spot for organizational design? Project Management Journal, 55(5), 507–519.

15.

Bredillet

Tywoniak

Tootoonchy

. (2018). Exploring the dynamics of project management office and portfolio management co-evolution: A routine lens. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 27–42.

16.

Brunet

Baba

Aubry

El Boukri

Primeau

M.-D.

Dollard

. (2020). Revealing the hidden facets of normative assessments: Improving the management of major infrastructure projects through engaged scholarship. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(1), 59–86.

17.

Brunet

Petit

M.-C.

Romero-Torres

. (2023). Interorganizational design for collaborative governance in co-owned major projects: An engaged scholarship approach. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 580–598.

18.

Chandler

A. D

. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Beard Books.

19.

Clement

Puranam

. (2018). Searching for structure: Formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Management Science, 64(8), 3879–3895.

20.

Dai

C. X. Y.

Wells

W. G

. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 523–532.

21.

Denicol

Davies

Pryke

. (2021). The organisational architecture of megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(4), 339–350.

22.

de Waard

E. J.

Kramer

E. H.

(2008) Tailored task forces: Temporary organizations and modularity. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 537–546.

23.

Di Vincenzo

Mascia

(2012). Social capital in project-based organizations: Its role, structure, and impact on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 5–14.

24.

Engwall

Kaulio

Karakaya

Miterev

Berlin

. (2021). Experimental networks for business model innovation: A way for incumbents to navigate sustainability transitions? Technovation, 108, 1–17.

25.

Eren

. (2019). Top government hands-on megaproject management: The case of Istanbul’s grand airport. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(3), 666–693.

26.

Eriksson

Kadefors

. (2017). Organisational design and development in a large rail tunnel project—Influence of heuristics and mantras. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 492–503.

27.

Fernandes

E. B.

Wegner

Möllering

. (2023). Governance of interorganizational projects: A process-based approach applied to a Latin American–European case. Project Management Journal, 54(3), 219–234.

28.

Flyvbjerg

Bruzelius

Rothengatter

. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press.

29.

Zhang

Chen

. (2022). Coping with institutional complexity and voids: An organization design perspective for transnational interorganizational projects. Project Management Journal, 53(1), 49–66.

30.

Galbraith

J. R

. (1971). Matrix organization design: How to combine functional and project forms. Business Horizons, 14(1), 29–40.

31.

Galbraith

J. R.

(2009). The Star model™. https://jaygalbraith.com/services/star-model/

32.

Galbraith

J. R

. (2012). The future of organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 3–6.

33.

Geraldi

J. G

. (2008). The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual model. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 348–356.

34.

Giddens

. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.

35.

Gil

. (2021). Megaproject performance, value creation, and value distribution: An organizational governance perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), 224–251.

36.

Greenwood

Miller

. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 78–88.

37.

Hällgren

Rouleau

de Rond

(2017). A matter of life or death: How extreme context research matters for management and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 111–153.

38.

Hatfield

. (2008). Things your PMO is doing wrong. Project Management Institute.

39.

Hellgren

Stjernberg

. (1995). Design and implementation in major investments—A project network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 377–394.

40.

Hill

G. M.

(2008). The complete project management office handbook (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.

41.

Hobbs

Aubry

. (2010). The project management office: A quest for understanding. Project Management Institute.

42.

Hobbs

Ménard

. (1993). Organizational choices for project management. In Dinsmore

P. C.

(Ed.), The handbook of project management (pp. 81–108). Amacom.

43.

Hobday

. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy, 29(7–8), 871–893.

44.

Hodgson

Fred

Bailey

Hall

. (2019). The projectification of the public sector. Taylor & Francis.

45.

Hurt

Thomas

J. L

. (2009). Building value through sustainable project management offices. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 55–72.

46.

Ika

L. A.

Munro

L. T

. (2022). Tackling grand challenges with projects: Five insights and a research agenda for project management theory and practice. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 601–607

47.

Jerbrant

Gustavsson

T. K

. (2013). Managing project portfolios: Balancing flexibility and structure by improvising. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 152–172.

48.

Katz

Allen

T. J

. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 67–87.

49.

Keegan

A. E.

Den Hartog

D. N.

(2004). Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 609–617.

50.

Kock

Ekrot

Gemünden

H. G

. (2024). It takes two to tango: The interactive effect of project portfolio management offices and voice behavior on project portfolio management quality and business success. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 473–486.

51.

Larson

Gobeli

. (1987). Matrix management: Contradictions and insights. California Management Review, 29(4), 126–138.

52.

Laslo

Goldberg

A. I

. (2008). Resource allocation under uncertainty in a multi-project matrix environment: Is organizational conflict inevitable? International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), 773–788.

53.

Lenfle

. (2016). Floating in space? On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 47–61.

54.

Lundin

R. A

. (2016). Project society: Paths and challenges. Project Management Journal, 47(4), 7–15.

55.

Lundin

R. A.

Söderholm

. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.

56.

Martinsuo

Ahola

. (2022). Multi-project management in inter-organizational contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 813–826.

57.

Midler

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

58.

Mintzberg

. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations . Prentice-Hall International.

59.

Mintzberg

(1989). The structuring of organizations. In Asch

Bowman

(Eds.), Readings in strategic management (pp. 322–352). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20317-8_23

60.

Miterev

. (2024). Raison d'etre of organization design arrangements in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 541–557.

61.

Miterev

Engwall

Jerbrant

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

62.

Miterev

Jerbrant

Feldmann

. (2020). Exploring the alignment between organization designs and value processes over the program lifecycle. International Journal of Project Management, 38(2), 112–123.

63.

Miterev

Mancini

Turner

. (2017). Towards a design for the project-based organization. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 479–491.

64.

Miterev

Turner

Mancini

. (2017). The organization design perspective on the project-based organization: A structured review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3), 527–549.

65.

Morris

Hough

G. H

. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. Wiley.

66.

Morrison

E. W

. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

67.

Müller

. (2017). Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practices and consequences. Routledge.

68.

Müller

Alix-Séguin

Alonderienė

Bourgault

Chmieliauskas

Drouin

Minelgaite

Pilkienė

Šimkonis

Unterhitzenberger

Vaagaasar

A. L.

Wang

Zhu

. (2022). A (meta)governance framework for multi-level governance of inter-organizational project networks. Production Planning & Control, 35(10), 1043–1062.

69.

Müller

Drouin

Sankaran

. (2019). Modeling organizational project management. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 499–513.

70.

Müller

Locatelli

Holzmann

Nilsson

Sagay

. (2024). Artificial intelligence and project management: Empirical overview, state of the art, and guidelines for future research. Project Management Journal, 55(1), 9–15.

71.

Müller

Wang

. (2024). A taxonomy of project management offices and their organizational project management landscapes. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 520–540.

72.

Nadler

D. A.

Tushman

M. L

. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35–51.

73.

Okhuysen

G. A.

Bonardi

J.-P

. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36, 6–11.

74.

Pellegrinelli

Garagna

. (2009). Towards a conceptualisation of PMOs as agents and subjects of change and renewal. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 649–656.

75.

Pemsel

Söderlund

. (2024). Knowledge entrainment in large-scale transformation projects: The evidence-based strategy and the innovation-based strategy. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 487–506.

76.

Pemsel

Wiewiora

. (2013). Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 31–42.

77.

Roberts

K. H

. (1990). Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. Organization Science, 1(2), 160–176.

78.

Sanderson

. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: A critical discussion of alternative explanations. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 432–443.

79.

Shuman

Twombly

. (2010). Collaborative networks are the organization: An innovation in organization design and management. Vikalpa, 35(1), 1–14.

80.

Simard

Aubry

Laberge

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

81.

Soda

Zaheer

. (2012). A network perspective on organizational architecture: Performance effects of the interplay of formal and informal organization. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 751–771.

82.

Söderlund

. (2010). Knowledge entrainment and project management: The case of large-scale transformation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 130–141.

83.

Söderlund

Tell

. (2009). The P-form organization and the dynamics of project competence: Project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950–2000. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 101–112.

84.

Sun

Zhang

. (2011). Owner organization design for mega industrial construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 828–833.

85.

Unterhitzenberger

Naderpajouh

Hällgren

Huemann

. (2024). Temporary organising and crisis (guest editorial). International Journal of Project Management, 42(2), 102576.

86.

Van Marrewijk

Clegg

S. R.

Pitsis

T. S.

Veenswijk

(2008). Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 591–600.

87.

Wang

Müller

Zhu

. (2023). Network governance for interorganizational temporary organizations: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 35–51.

88.

Waterman

R. H.

Peters

T. J.

Phillips

J. R

. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0

89.

Zani

C. M.

Denicol

Broyd

. The four coordination roles of clients when designing megaproject organizations. Project Management Journal, 55(5), 558–579.