Project Management Offices at BHP Billiton and Lego (Mini-Case Study: 2.2)
This mini-case study considers the effectiveness of project management offices at BHP Billiton and LEGO. It focuses on how a PMO becomes integrated into its organization through expertise, collaboration, stakeholder support, and a clear mission.
Discuss the differences between the two project management offices and assess the effectiveness of each approach.
Project management offices can play a valuable internal role when their services are delivered appropriately. The original analysis views both organizations' approaches positively, emphasizing their contribution to project value and their ability to address challenges.
PMO effectiveness varies between organizations. An important differentiator is how well the office is embedded and integrated within its organization. Four factors can help assess that integration:
- Recognition of expertise: Project professionals working with the PMO should strengthen the respect that project management receives within the organization.
- Collaboration: The PMO should encourage cooperation between project professionals and across departments.
- Support: The PMO needs support from relevant stakeholders.
- Mission: People outside the PMO should know its purpose and understand its role.
I believe that strengthening these factors can improve the PMO's integration and effectiveness, contributing to better organizational performance.
Comparing the Approaches Fairly
The supplied answer does not describe the specific structure, authority, or services of each company's PMO. It therefore supports a framework for comparison rather than a definitive finding that one office was more centralized, more controlling, or more effective than the other.
APM notes that a PMO may support projects, programmes, or portfolios.[1] Establishing what each office was expected to support is an essential first step before comparing results.
Research published through PMI examines PMO performance in relation to organizational context. Research on PMO transformation also identifies the importance of context, change management, and coordination mechanisms.[2][3]
Comparison Framework for BHP Billiton and LEGO
The following questions should be applied separately to each organization using evidence from the complete case. They do not assert unverified differences between the companies.
| Comparison area | Question for each organization | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate | What problem was the PMO established to solve? | Effectiveness should be judged against its intended purpose. |
| Services | Did it provide reporting, methods, advice, assurance, or other support? | Different service combinations require different performance measures. |
| Authority | What could it require, recommend, or approve? | Expectations must match the authority available. |
| Organizational reach | Which teams, projects, or management levels did it support? | A local support office and an enterprise-wide office have different demands. |
| Integration | How did project teams and decision-makers use its services? | Formal existence alone does not demonstrate practical value. |
| Results | What evidence shows that its contribution improved decisions or delivery? | Activity levels should be distinguished from useful outcomes. |
Applying the Four Effectiveness Factors
1. Recognition of Expertise
A PMO needs credibility with the people it supports. That credibility can develop when its advice helps teams solve real problems and when its methods are proportionate to the work.
For either organization, a practical assessment would examine whether project professionals seek the PMO's assistance and whether managers consider its analysis useful. Producing more guidance would not, by itself, demonstrate greater expertise or value.
2. Collaboration
Collaboration should make it easier for teams to coordinate dependencies, share experience, and resolve competing demands. The PMO can support these relationships without becoming the point through which every minor decision must pass.
An illustrative improvement would be a shared review of resource conflicts affecting several projects. Its value would depend on whether the review leads to workable decisions.
3. Stakeholder Support
Support needs to extend beyond initial authorization. Senior managers and project teams should understand what they contribute to the PMO and what they receive from it.
If an office is expected to improve reporting but cannot obtain timely information, its mandate and working arrangements need attention. Support becomes meaningful when people provide the participation and resources required.
4. A Clear Mission
A clear mission helps prevent conflicting expectations. One manager may expect administrative support while another expects independent challenge of project performance. Those roles can coexist, but their boundaries should be explicit.
For both BHP Billiton and LEGO, the assessment should therefore ask whether stakeholders understood the office's purpose and whether its services matched that purpose.
Illustrative PMO Effectiveness Review
This proposed review sequence develops the original four factors. It is not a reconstruction of either company's internal process.
| Stage | Action | Expected output |
|---|---|---|
| Confirm purpose | Review the mandate with sponsors and service users. | Agreed expectations and service boundaries. |
| Gather evidence | Review service use, stakeholder feedback, and examples of outcomes. | A balanced account of strengths and gaps. |
| Select improvements | Identify changes addressing the most important gaps. | Prioritized actions with owners. |
| Test and review | Check whether the changes improve usefulness and integration. | Evidence supporting further adoption or adjustment. |
Conclusion
The original answer emphasizes that PMO effectiveness depends on organizational integration. Expertise, collaboration, support, and mission provide useful lenses for assessing both approaches. A final judgment about their differences requires evidence of each office's mandate, working arrangements, and results rather than assuming that one PMO design is universally superior.
Sources and Further Reading
These sources support the expanded assessment framework. They do not independently establish the historical arrangements or comparative performance of the two companies' PMOs.
- Association for Project Management. What Is a PMO?
- Project Management Institute. Project Management Office Structure Affects PMO Performance.
- Aubry, M. (2015). Project Management Office Transformations: Direct and Moderating Effects That Enhance Performance and Maturity. Project Management Journal.