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
The second stream that we can identify combining organizational design and projects relates specifically to
The third stream, which partly extends along the former, concerns
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
Organizational Design
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.
