I wish this were not true, but ever since 2002 when we began facilitating project management benchmarking groups, I have been meeting PMO directors who brought project management to the attention to senior management, created PMOs or Centers of Excellence, drove PM improvements across organizations, improved project and portfolio performance … and wound up unemployed.

Of course, the present economic climate puts every area of the organization under the microscope, but it does seem that PMOs are more susceptible to the ax than many other functions. My theory about this is that great project (or program) management is like great editing: invisible. When the management of projects, programs, or portfolios goes smoothly …. nothing dramatic happens. Things get done, decisions get made, money gets made, schedules are met. No problem. No bloopers, no typos.

“Hey,” says the CEO. “Everything is going so well. What do we need this PMO for? It’s overhead.”

The latest cover story in PM Network magazine focuses on just this issue: the crucial requirement for PMOs to show value, and show it often, in order to simply maintain their place in the organization. (The Accident Fund PMO, by the way, has been a finalist and a winner of our PMO of the Year Award in previous years, under the previous director Norm Buckwalter–something that isn’t mentioned in the article).

Often, PMOs succumb to a disease that is affecting all areas of organizations: the short-term CEO syndrome. Research by executive search firm Drake Beam Morin notes that when CEO tenure drops, businesses focus on achieving quick and short-term results. Since (as our 2008 study The State of the PMO revealed), it’s only mature PMOs that bring business benefits, it’s easy to see how short-term thinking can doom PMOs. Unfortunately, this only harms organizations in the long run.

Have a PMO success-to-sadness story? I’m all ears.

I had the pleasure of delivering the keynote address at the CBP Summit this year, on the subject of PMO Governance. And, because the topic of governance always touches on areas in organizations where our assumptions rule … where things that “can’t” be questioned (but should be) take up residence … I thought I’d kick it off with a little exercise to show my audience how we can all suffer from “perceptual blindness” - the failure to see things that are right under our noses - simply because we are focused elsewhere.

I won’t go into this too much so as not to spoil the effect, but take at look at the video on this site. Tip: Notice how many times the white shirts pass the ball and see if you can detect any gender bias.

Gotcha? Well, the same thing happens in organizations. We are sure we “know” things about our processes that in fact may not be true. For example, it isn’t uncommon to hear of highly successful PMOs that are disbanded. Another speaker, Paul Ritchie of SAP (check out his Crossderry Blog in our Blogroll) addressed this in his Summit presentation. He mentioned the wake-up call he received when he realized that others did not view his “successful” PMO in the same light he did, and the self-examination he went through to address his own blind spots.

When developing a governance structure - for the PMO or an entire organization - it’s critical to have a clear view of organizational structures, politics, and status. Devising the rules that govern what’s in and what’s out of a portfolio of project investments can’t be based of false assumptions about value, markets, resources, or strategies. That’s why some of the top research firms - Gartner, for example - have recommended bringing in outside voices to address similar organizational change issues. When assessing the organizational playbook, it helps to have a little perspective on the game.