An article worth reading in Chief Project Officer on the notion of a job title called....Chief Project Officer! Check out the heated discussion at the bottom of the article to see the back and forth on Dinsmore's basic premise: "upper management needs to have overall control of how projects are handled"
My take:
“I have a hard time disagreeing with Paul Dinsmore's argument for a "CPO." While it may not resolve to a particular title held by a single individual, it is now crystal clear that organizations need project governance relative to goals and strategies. Projects are the management control function for any new initiative, and organizations have a lot of room to improve how they "manage projects." Having implemented over 100 PMO/PPM systems, there is little doubt at this point of the huge benefits. Even Joe Ingersol's rebuttal essentially argues against itself by suggesting that Porche, Goldman Sachs and Boston brewing don't want to do things "better." While they may not focus on cheaper and faster, I suggest Joe might be missing the point here. This bigger issue appears to me to be the failure of chain-of-command management to establish cross departmental coordination toward goals for products, services and customers. This appears to be the major hurdle at this point.”
Comments