Altestra

Insights

Why PMOs are abandoned, and the design decision that prevents it

· 8 min read

Most project management offices are set up as control functions before the organization has anything to control. One decision, taken before the charter is written, changes how long they last.

Most project management offices we meet are in one of two states. Either they were set up recently and have a charter, a set of templates and a monthly status cycle, or they were set up a while ago and are being worked around. The second state follows the first more often than anyone setting one up expects, and in our experience it takes about two years.

The research agrees that PMOs rarely stay still. A peer-reviewed study in the Project Management Journal opens with the observation that PMOs are “dynamic organizational entities, frequently in transition from one charter and structure to the next.” A later review in the International Journal of Project Management, summarized by the Association for Project Management, notes that “PMOs are often short-lived and their value is hard to quantify.” Not every change is a failure; some offices are reshaped because the organization around them has changed. But many are reshaped because they never earned their place. What follows is that pattern as we see it, why it happens, and the one design decision that prevents it.

The pattern

The first quarter is busy and hopeful. A charter is approved. Templates for a project brief, a plan and a status report are issued. Project managers are asked to report every two weeks, and they do, because the office is new and someone senior asked for it.

By the second and third quarters the reports are arriving on time and nobody is reading them. The leadership team gets a summary it did not ask for, in a format it did not choose, about projects it already knows about from the corridor. The project managers notice that no decision ever follows a report, and the reports get thinner.

In the fourth and fifth quarters the exceptions begin. A project is too small for the template, or too urgent, or run by someone who was never asked to comply. The office asks for more authority to close the gaps. The leadership team asks, usually for the first time out loud, what the office gives them for its cost.

Somewhere in the second year the office is disbanded, or kept as a reporting function with one person and no influence, or renamed. The templates survive in a shared folder. The next office, two or three years later, starts with a new charter and the same assumptions.

Gartner describes the same end in its 2024 strategic roadmap for enterprise PMOs: offices “that do not have a clear identity and purpose are often relegated to an operational role with a narrow focus on execution, or even disbanded.”

Why control-first fails

The office in this pattern was designed as a control function before the organization had anything to control, and before the office had earned any authority to control it.

Authority in an organization of this size is not granted by a charter. It is earned by being useful, repeatedly, to people who can decline your help. A new office has given nothing yet. When its first act is to ask for status, it is making a withdrawal from an account with no deposits. Gartner’s 2026 research on PMO services states the consequence: “When PMO services go underutilized, PMOs risk becoming irrelevant, losing credibility, influence, and their ability to shape consistent ways of working across the enterprise.”

The status it collects then has nowhere to go. A report is only worth producing if a decision depends on it: to stop a project, to move people, to change a date, to say no to a new request. In most organizations at this stage there is no forum where those decisions are taken, so the report informs nothing. A Gartner analyst made the point a decade ago, when the firm set out its best practices for PMOs: “It’s important to check that reporting provides organizational leadership with status information that supports effective decision-making.” People are quick to notice when their effort informs nothing, and they stop making it. The decay of the data is not a discipline problem; it is a design problem.

The link to strategy is weaker than most charters assume. In the Project Management Institute’s 2018 Pulse of the Profession, “Only 41% of organizations with an enterprise-wide project management office (EPMO) report that it is highly aligned to the organization’s strategy.” An office that is not connected to the decisions that matter most will be judged on the paperwork it produces, and paperwork rarely survives that judgment.

Tools make this worse. An office that buys project software in its first quarter has committed the organization to a way of working before the way of working exists. The tool becomes the practice, and it is rarely the right one.

The design decision

The decision that prevents the pattern is taken before the charter is written, and it is this: what will the office give on its first day, to people who are free to ignore it?

An office designed around that question starts differently. On day one it produces a visible list of every project actually underway, with an owner and a next decision against each. Nobody has seen that list before, and everyone wants it. It offers a clear way to get a project onto the list and off it, which is a service to the people who are tired of being handed work sideways. It offers help to the people delivering: a planning session, a risk conversation, a hand with a difficult stakeholder.

Control arrives later, as a consequence. Once the list exists, the question of whether it is longer than the capacity to deliver it answers itself, and the leadership team starts asking for the decision forum it never had. Once projects enter through a known door, prioritization becomes possible. Once the office has helped a few project managers out of trouble, a request for a status update is answered honestly, because the answer might bring help.

We call this services before control. It is not a softer version of the same office. It is a different sequence, and the sequence is the whole point. The idea is far older than project management. Robert K. Greenleaf, who coined the term servant leadership in 1970, offered a test for it that fits a PMO well: “Do those served grow as persons?” For an office, the equivalent question is whether the people it serves deliver better because it exists.

What it looks like at different levels

The right size of the office depends on where the organization is, which is why we measure before we design.

At the first and second maturity levels, where outcomes still depend on individuals and the shared way is written but unevenly applied, the office is often one person. That person keeps the register, runs a monthly portfolio review with the leadership team, and spends the rest of the time helping. There is no software beyond a spreadsheet, and the status report is the register itself, read aloud.

At the third level, where practice is consistent and reviewed on a cadence, the office adds a capacity view the leadership team can read in a minute, two or three measures that matter, and intake criteria the leadership will actually apply. A tool may now be worth buying, because there is a practice for it to support.

Reaching the fourth level, where the practice adjusts itself on evidence, is not everyone’s goal, and for many organizations the third level is the right place to stop.

Three questions before setting one up

Before an office is chartered, three questions are worth an honest hour with the leadership team.

Is the list of projects shorter than the capacity to deliver it? If nobody knows, that is the office’s first job, and it is a service, not a control.

Who decides to stop a project? If the answer is nobody, or everybody, the office will produce reports that lead nowhere until that forum exists. Designing the forum is part of designing the office.

What will the office give on its first day? If the only answer is a template, the pattern above has already started.

What we do not do

We do not set up an office by issuing a tool. We do not write a two-hundred-page manual for it. We do not treat its first year as a compliance exercise. We design the smallest office that gives something on its first day, run it on real projects for two or three cycles, adjust what turns out wrong, and leave when the organization’s own people are running it.

The Tao Te Ching, in James Legge’s 1891 translation, describes the best of the ancient rulers in a line we would gladly apply to our own work: “Their work was done and their undertakings were successful, while the people all said, ‘We are as we are, of ourselves!’”

If your organization has a PMO that is being worked around, or is about to set one up, the first step is the same: a short look at the list, the capacity and the decision forum, honestly scored. That is the Map stage of how we work, and it is useful on its own.

Sources

The service behind this piece

Read next

Recognize your organization in this? Tell us what is happening.

Talk to us