Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration

Transcription

1 European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN X / X Vol. 146 No 4 August, 2017, pp europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration Bárbara Harumy Sano Federal Fluminense University, Mario Santos Braga Street Centro, Niterói-RJ, Brasil barbarasano@gmail.com Davi Tavares de Lira Federal Fluminense University, Mario Santos Braga Street Centro, Niterói-RJ, Brasil davilira@id.uff.br Willian Da Silva de Araújo Federal Fluminense University, Miguel de Frias Street, 9 Icaraí, Niterói-RJ, Brasil willianaraujo@id.uff.br Selma Regina Martins Oliveira Federal Fluminense University, Desembargador Ellis Hermydio Figueira 783, Aterrado, Volta Redonda-RJ, Brasil selmaregina@id.uff.br Abstract The present article aims to verify, according to experts insight, what facilitating and/or hampering factors influence on the implementation of a project management office in the Public Administration, taking as object of study the Superintendence of Information Technology - Fluminense Federal University/SIT. Towards this end, thirty factors were identified, supported by literature, which were verified along with the experts mentioned above, based on a scale grid, and later, classified according to a certain degree of facilitation. As a result, it is clear that the items related to leadership facilitated the most, and the item related to different interests from the Stakeholders, hampered the most. Keywords: Project Management Office; Public Administration; STI/UFF; Facilitating factors; Hampering factors 1. Introduction The information revolution that has been happening since the end of the 19th century has changed the manufacturing method in all sectors, mainly those regarding information technology. In this scenario, the Public Administration has adopted managerial list procedures byadding some practices that come from the private activity, without ruling out the characteristics of the public service. This way, when seeking efficiency in the elaboration, implementation and evaluation of the public projects, a good management of the projects becomes essential. One of the structures that can be fundamental in the

2 Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration 396 project management is the Project Management Office [11], [16]; Varajão, Colomo-Palacios, and Silva, 2017; Kostalova, Tetrevova, and Svedik, 2015). According to the [14], the Project Management Office (PMO) is an organizational structure which aims to standardize the governance processes related to the project and, that way, to facilitate the sharing of resources, methodologies, tools and techniques. The structure of a PMO may varyfrom an organization to another due to its level of control and influence in the organization projects. Consequently, a PMO enables the continuous operation of a process that starts withproviding supporting roles and goes up to the actual direct management and the responsibility for achieving the project goals [20]. The PMO is closely linked to the overall business objectives of an organization, and it is considered an established administrative practice [8]. However, several issues may challenge a successful implementation of the Project Management Office. Therefore, this paper intends to verify which facilitating and/or hampering factors influenced on the implementation of a project management office in the Public Administration, in particular in the Superintendence of Information Technology atfluminense Federal University (Superintendência de Tecnologia da Informação da Universidade Federal Fluminense - STI/UFF), according to experts insight. 2. Theoretical Background The Project Management Office is an organizational structure that aims to standardize the governance processes related to the project and, that way, to facilitate the sharing of resources, methodologies, tools and techniques. They execute a series of functions, like project definition and planning; costbenefit analysis of the projects; risk management; monitoring and control; provision of experience and knowledge; support to the project management company (PM); processes and procedures; capture of knowledge and dissemination; provision of expertise; maintenance of projects, tools, patterns and processes [18]. Therefore, organizations with PMOs facilitate the project management activity as far as the project activities tend to be concentrated and more visible in those institutions [2]. [19] points outsome reasons to implement a PMO, which are: it establishes an organizational culture more favorable to developing projects; increases the success rate in projects, developing a more effective control over scope, cost and time; ensures that the project results are measured, managed, monitored and improved; standardizes tools, forms, techniques and project management terms; increases customer satisfaction;etc. [9] declares that the PMO, as a formal organizational structure, has a number of purposes: support to the project manager; to provide training to teams involved in projects; to use the software to control the project; to establish methods, patterns and means; to be a benchmark of excellence in project management; and to take responsibility for project results. The roles of the PMOs, according to [7], are segmented in three levels, which are the strategic, where the PMO acts ensuring the alignment of the projects with the organizational objectives; the tactical, in which the PMO is responsible for the integration between initiatives, enabling the effective coordination between different projects of an organization; and the operational, in which the role of the PMO runs through the construction of the operational review procedure based on the evaluations, ensuring that the information is available on decision-making about processes of specific execution, the constant verification of customer satisfaction and communication coordination through internal and external customers, keeping the expertise on project management, and acting as a central repository of lessons learned and better practices and methodologies. Hence, PMOs appear as variable structures, and are, from time to time, reconfigured by the organizations as new scenarios emerge [3].The projects management of the public sector can be more difficult when compared to the private sector, considering the nature of the environments in which they are inserted and for involving many levels of stakeholderswith different interests [21]. However, related to the use of management practices of the PMO, there is not much difference between the public and the private sector, particularly concerning the projects and challenges of its implementation. [4].

3 397 Bárbara Harumy Sano, Davi Tavares de Lira, Willian Da Silva de Araújo and Selma Regina Martins Oliveira It is important to pay attention to different elements when implementing a PMO, because it requires investment on human resources, time and money [19]. The lack of understanding of the role of the PMO in the organization may be a great challenge for its implementation [19]. That way, it is fundamental to observe the culture. [18],[15],[10]. An adoption without analyzing the culture, only importing the model from literature without customization, can result in a projects office seen as unwanted, only a generator of work and cost which does not add competitive value [4]. The PMOs work as a skills centre. Thus, its implementation is essential to consolidate a culture of project management in the organizations [9]. The implementation of the PMO will create cultural opposition from professionals which are submitted to its services and processes. It is then necessary to support the implementation activities focusing on change management, aiming a strong engagement by the stakeholders and an intense communication. [4], [9]. It is important to emphasize the engagement of the higher management on those processes [15]. Another vital issue involves the training of its employees [1],[4], [9]. In the public sector, the PMO seeks to ensure higher efficiency to the projects and to be the enabler of aspects relatedto transparency and accountability [4]. The projects need to based on governability and governance [4], [5] aside from observing the strict rules, laws, standards and the internal and external controls to which they are submitted [4], [21]. Another significant factor in this environment is the politics. [5][21]. [4] points out some recommendations on implementing a projects office in the public administration: i) positioning of the PMO: choose a bottom up approach; ii) adopt a phased implementation approach; iii) work with governance structures; iv) opt for an office that provides services and not only for an area of support and control. 3. Methodology The present paper can be considered a descriptive research, with both qualitative and quantitative nature, by using the case study method. As research methods, there were: bibliographic research, documentary research and field research. The first contemplating a review of the literature about project management office; the others seeking to analyze the process of implementation of the project office at STI/UFF. The adopted procedures are: 1. To extract from literature the factors which are obstacles and/or facilitators on the implementation of project offices; 2. To verify alongside the experts at STI/UFF, among the obtained factors and using a scalar-type matrix, which were present influencing positively or negatively the process of deployment of the Projects Office at STI. 3. To grade the elements according to the specific facilitating level; and 4. To analyze the obtained results. The parameterization of the answers was built based on the Likert Scale, used when answers with levels of agreement occur. [13] emphasizesthat the objective of a Likert-type scale is to verify the level of agreement of the subject with a series of statements which express something favorable or unfavorable compared with a psychological object. In order to build the graphics and charts, aside from the data obtained, the qualitative method was partially used for interpretation and summary of the information provided by Likert scales suggested by [17]. The methodology used allowed the classification and categorization of the factors in order to elucidate the characteristics observed by the experts at STI/UFF.

4 Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration Development 4.1 Experts Profile This questionnaire was offered to 14 employees at STI/UFF which met the following requirements: To have participated directly to the structuring process of the PMO at STI/UFF and/or act/have acted in anit project managerial position, demonstrating knowledge and technical ability to evaluate the selected factors. To prove, at least, 6 years of professional experience in the area. This requirement was previously stipulated, since the process of introducing the Projects Office at the mentioned body started in 2011 (six years ago). 93% agreed to answer the questionnaire (13 respondents), where 46% (6 respondents) claimed to have worked in other organizations with PMO. 4.2 Influential Factors Supported by the literature regarding a project office, 30 (thirty) influential factors were selected and adapted in the implementation of PMOs, used for analysis by the experts, consolidating Chart 1: Table 1: Influencing factors on the implementation of a Projects Office Factor Number Factor Description 1 Stakeholders Cooperation with the PMO. 2 Stakeholders with different interests. 3 Managers dedicating themselves under exclusive dedication 4 Managers assigned to the role for political reasons. 5 Managers getting bonuses for carrying out their duties. 6 Previous experience (in other PMOs). 7 Implementation team with capacity (sufficient quantity). 8 Implementation Team with appropriate skills for the implementation of the PMO. 9 Leadership qualities existing in the team leaders. 10 Financial Resources for training. 11 Motivation by the employees for professional training. 12 Maturity of processes of STI/UFF. 13 Effective communication as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes of the PMO. 14 Hierarchy as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes of the PMO. 15 Political pressure as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes. 16 Engagement of the higher management. 17 Engagement of the project managers. 18 Engagement of the project team members. 19 Implementation plan definition. 20 Realistic, clear and well-defined goals for the PMO. 21 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the managers. 22 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the Executive Directory and Governance. 23 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the other project team members. 24 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the stakeholders. 25 Support to the implementation change management. 26 Purchasing and parameterization of project management tools. 27 Familiar technology. 28 Proper infrastructure. 29 Culture and values of the institution. 30 Laws, standards and rules in the Public administration. Source: Elaborated by the authors Using a Likert-type scale, the employees evaluated the factors according to the classification described below: HHF Highly Hampering Factor HF Hampering Factor

5 399 Bárbara Harumy Sano, Davi Tavares de Lira, Willian Da Silva de Araújo and Selma Regina Martins Oliveira N Neutral FF Facilitating Factor HFF Highly Facilitating Factor This consolidates Table 2, which shows the individual scale of the facilitating or hampering factors in the implementation of project offices at STI/UFF, also showing the amount of respondents and the coefficients of belief and disbelief (μ1 and μ2) that the factors, as a whole, are facilitating and/or hampering. Table 2: ScaleAnalysis of thefacilitating/hamperingfactors Factors HHF HF N FF HFF QR Median Column Mode Hampering Facilitating Factors Factors FF FF HF HF 14,5 2, FF FF 4,5 12, N N 12,5 4, N N 7,5 7, FF FF / HFF 4,5 13, N HF FF FF / HFF FF FF 2,5 13, N N FF FF 5,5 11, FF HHF / FF FF FF 2,5 13, N N / FF N HHF / N FF FF 2,5 13, HFF HFF 1,5 17, FF FF / HFF 2,5 15, FF FF 5,5 9, FF FF 3,5 13, FF FF 2,5 14, FF FF FF FF FF FF 5,5 8, N N / FF 5,5 7, N N 6,5 9, N N N HF 8,5 6, N HF N N 8 8 Total ,39 0, H 239 F μ1: Belief that the factors, as a whole, are hampering μ2: Belief that the factors, as a whole, are facilitating Legend: Num. of the factor=description in chart 1. Columns HHF,HF,N,FF,HFF=amount of respondents who opted for the columns of the semantic differential. QR=total amount of respondents per question; Median=column inside the semantic differential in which is the respondent num.7 (13/2 approximated to the number above); Hampering factors=amount of respondents who considered the factor hampering or highly hampering plus half of those who considered the factor neutral (HHF*2+HF+0.5*N); Facilitating factors=amount of respondents who considered the factor facilitating or highly facilitating plus half of those who considered the factor neutral (HFF*2+FF+0.5*N); H= total of respondents who considered all the factors hampering plus half of all who consider the factors neutral. F= Total of respondents who considered all the factors facilitating plus half of all who consider the factors neutral; μ1: Belief that the factors, as a whole, are hampering (151/390); μ2: Belief that the factors, as a whole, are facilitating (239/390). Source:[16], adapted by the authors.

6 Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration 400 Table 3 classifies the factors according to the specific facilitating level, calculated in accordance with the equation: (100-(100/(Facilitating Factors/Hampering Factors+1))). This classification allows the finding of the factors which got the higher level of facilitation and those who sowed the worst results. Table 3: Factors that contribute to the quality of a project office Classification Factor Facilitating Level Description of the Factor Number of the Factor 1º 17 Engagement of the project managers 92,11 2º 18 Engagement of the project team members 86,11 3º 21 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the managers 85,29 4º 9 Leadership qualities existing in the team leaders 84,38 5º 13 Effective communication as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes of the PMO 84,38 6º 16 Engagement of the higher management 84,38 7º 20 Realistic, clear and well-defined goals for the PMO 79,41 8º 8 Implementation Team with appropriate skills for the implementation of the PMO 78,95 9º 6 Previous experience (in other PMOs) 75,00 10º 3 Managers dedicating themselves under exclusive dedication 73,53 11º 23 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the other project team members 73,33 12º 1 Stakeholders Cooperation with the PMO 71,43 13º 22 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the Executive Directory and Governance 68,75 14º 11 Motivation by the employees for professional training 67,65 15º 27 Familiar technology 64,29 16º 19 Implementationplandefinition 63,33 17º 24 Understanding of the role of the PMO by the stakeholders 60,71 18º 26 Purchasing and parameterization of project management tools 59,38 19º 25 Support to the implementation change management 57,69 20º 12 12Maturity of processes of STI/UFF 55,00 21º 7 Implementation team with capacity (sufficient quantity) 53,33 22º 14 Hierarchy as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes of the PMO 53,33 23º 5 Managers getting bonuses for carrying out their duties 50,00 24º 30 Laws, standards and rules in the Public administration 50,00 25º 28 Properinfrastructure 43,33 26º 29 Culture and values of the institution 41,18 27º 10 Financial Resources for training 33,33 28º 15 Political pressure as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes 31,58 29º 4 Managers assigned to the role for political reasons 26,47 30º 2 Stakeholderswithdifferentinterests 14,71 Legend: Facilitating level per factor = Level of agreement of the proposition as facilitator, calculated according to the equation (100-(100/(Facilitating Factors/Hampering Factors+1))) data extract from Chart 1;Source: Elaborated by the authors. Figure 1 allows the visualization of the factors in their ranking order, according to Table 3:

7 401 Bárbaraa Harumy Sano, Davi Tavares de Lira, Willian Da Silva de Araújo and Selma Regina Martins Oliveira Figure 1: Factors that contribute to the quality of a project office - (classified according the Table 3) HHF HF N FF HFF Source: Elaborated by the authors Following, it is possible to visualize the classification of the factors, according to its level of facilitating, in the chart for interpretation of values suggested by [6], p.70: Table 4: Interpretation of Values Value of the Facilitating Level 90 or more 80 a + 89, a + 79, a + 69, a + 59, a + 49, a + 39, a + 29, a ,99 or less Source: [6], p.70, adapted by the authors Appropriate Sentence A strong agreement A substantial agreement A moderate agreement A low agreement A very low agreement A very low disagreement A low disagreement A moderate disagreement A substantial disagreement A strong disagreement Factors 17 18, 21, 9, 13 e 16 20, 8, 6, 3, 23 e 1 22, 11, 27, 19 e 24 26, 25, 12, 7, 14, 5 e e e Figure 2 represents the variables μ1 e μ2, showing that even though several items highlighted hampering aspects in the project managers view, which account for 39%, the facilitating aspects of the factors as a whole standout, showing a level of 61%.

8 Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration 402 Figure 2: Comparative of Factors μ1: Belief that the factors, as a whole, are hampering μ2: Belief that the factors, as a whole, are facilitating Source: Elaborated by the authors 1 Thus, by managing and working on the hampering factors it is possible to increase the index μ2, aiming at improving the performance of the projects office at STI/UFF. 5. Discussion and Final Words Considering the scope of the paper, that sought to investigate along with the project managers what facilitating and/or hampering factors influence in the implementation of projects offices in the public administration, specifically in the STI/UFF, it is observed that: Engagement of the project managers is shown as the aspect with the higher level of facilitation, with the 92,11, fitting to the group of factors with a strong agreement. The attribution given to this factor may be related to the nature of the PMO in the organization, which according to[7],has the strategic role of ensuring the alignment of projects with the organizational objectives, and it is, therefore, crucial the engagement of the managers to achieve that objective. Next, Engagement of the project team members, Understanding of the role of the Project Office by the managers, Leadership qualities existing in the team leaders, Effective communication as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes of the PMO, and Engagement of the higher management are facilitating aspects, showing rates between 80 and 89,99, interpreted by [6] as items with substantial agreement. In the experts perception, the managers engagement has a higher level of facilitation compared to the one attributed to the higher management. Such aspects highlight the importance of the leaders/managers role in the implementation of a PMO, along with the factor related to the communication and engagement of the team. On the other hand, the factor Stakeholders with different interests (14,71) is pointed out as the most hampering, being interpreted as a substantial disagreement. This result meets [21] studies, which pointsit as a strong contributing factor to make the project management in the public sector more complex when compared to the public sector. The other items regarding the Stakeholders (items 1 and 24) showed a facilitating level higher than 60, emphasizing the fact that the hampering factor related to the Stakeholders involves only the divergences of interests between them. The category related to Politics, which according to [5] and [21] has great significance in the adoption process of a PMO, also presents itself as hampering, embracing the factors: Managers assigned to the role for political reasons (26,47), Political pressure as influencer on the definition/enforcement of processes (31,58), which show a low and moderate disagreement, respectively. Also with moderate disagreement, there are the Financial resources for training (33,33). It is important to emphasize that the studies of [1], [4] and [9] point out that offering training to the employees is vital to obtain success in the implementation of a PMO, strongly contributing to minimize

9 403 Bárbara Harumy Sano, Davi Tavares de Lira, Willian Da Silva de Araújo and Selma Regina Martins Oliveira the cultural resistances of the professionals who are submitted to its services and processes. Still on the subject of training, it is observedthat the Motivation by the employees to professionaltraining has reached a rate of 67,65, according to the experts perception. It is also noted the fact that one of the respondents suggested the insertion of two other factors, which are: Autonomy for the deployment team, rated by him as a strong facilitator and Change resistance by the management, seen as a hampering factor.although this research covers a study of art related to the topic, from where were obtained the factors examined, and uses a practical study based on statistical techniques and on expert experience, it is identified as restraining the fact that all the variables are qualitative, which implicates in a higher level of subjectivity, opening possibility to uncertainty. For further study, it is suggested: to investigate in other public institutions how the implementation process of the PMO started, as well as its relations to the Organization maturity impacts on the topic project management and the stakeholders perception in this process; to adopt other research methodologies and statistical techniques in order to face the results found; and, to measure the impact of the factors on specific steps of the implementation of a PMO in an organization. It is also evident that the project management in the Public Administration is a dynamic list of priorities, depending on the essential and desired existing capacities that emerge over practice time, always bringing new concepts and demanding new behaviors, new content and technical implementations, thus fundamentally requiring to permanently reconfigure the new capacities for the new performances. Regarding this effort, the research on such priorities should be applied permanently and periodically. This proposal is an additional tool available to managers, which helps to greatly reduce the uncertainty of public project management decisions. There are of course several issues to be further explored in other such studies, and is hoped that it contributed to a plausible discussion, with much still to be explored. References [1] Abbasi, G. Y.; Al-Mharmah, H. A, Project management practice by the public sector in a developing country. International Journal of Project Management, v. 18, p [2] Aubry, M.; Hobbs, B.;Thuillier, D., 2008 (a). Organisational project management: An historical approach to the study of PMOs. International Journal of Project Management. Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages [3] Aubry, M.;Hobbs, B;Thuillier, D, 2008 (b).the project management office as an organisational innovation.international Journal of Project Management.Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages [4] Carneiro, M. F. S., PMO no SetorPúblico. In: BARCAUI, A. (Org.). PMO: Escritórios de Projetos, Programas e Portfólio na prática. São Paulo: Editora Brasport, p [5] Crawford, L.; Helm, J, Government and Governance: The Value of Project Management in the Public Sector. Project Management Journal, v. 40, n. 1, p [6] Davis, J, 1976.Levantamento de dados em sociologia. Rio de Janeiro: Zhar. [7] De Souza, K.;Evaristo J. R, Project management offices: A case of knowledge-based archetypes. International Journal of Information Management n.26, p [8] Dias, A. T;Martins, H. C; Monteiro, P R R;Oliveira, R. R, 2014.Uma proposta de instrumento de pesquisa para a avaliação do desempenho do escritório de gerenciamentos de projetos. Minas Gerais: Revista de Gestão e Projetos, p [9] Esquierro, J. C.; Valle, A. B.; Soares, C. A. P.; Vivas, D. C, Implementationof a Project Management Office in a Public Sector Organization: A Case StudyInvolving a SanitationInstitution. InternationalReviewof Management and Marketing, v. 4, n. 1, p [10] Jannuzzi, H. B.; Neto, O. G. S, Caso 3 Gestão Efetiva de Projetos no Governo do Estado do Espírito Santo. In: Carneiro, M. F. S. (Org.). Gestão Pública: o papel do

10 Exploring the Implementation of Project Offices in the Public Administration 404 planejamento estratégico, gerenciamento de portfólio, programas e projetos e dos escritórios de projetos na modernização da gestão pública. Rio de Janeiro: EditoraBrasport, p [11] Kuruppuarachchi, P.R.;Mandal, P.; Smith, R., 2002.IT project implementation strategies for effective changes: a critical review, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 15 Issue: 2, pp [12] Likert, R., A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, n.140, p [13] Pasquali, L. (org.), Teoria e métodos de medida em ciências do comportamento. Brasília (DF): Laboratório de Pesquisa em Avaliação e Medida. Instituto de Psicologia. Universidade de Brasília, Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais,p [14] PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 5ª Ed. [15] Rego, M. L.; Silva, T. R., Desafios na implantação do Escritório de Gerenciamento de Projetos em um Governo Estadual. RevistaEconomia&Gestão, v. 11, n. 27, set/dez, [16] Rosacker, K. M.; Rosacker, R. E, Information technology project management within public sector organizations, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 23 Issue: 5, pp [17] Sanches, C.; Meireles, M.; De Sordi, J. O, Análise Qualitativa por meio da Lógica Paraconsistente: Método de Interpretação e Síntese de Informação obtida por Escalas Likert. Disponível em: < Acesso em: 04/07/17. [18] Santos, V.Varajão, J., PMO as a keyingredientofpublic sector projects success - position paper.procedia Computer Science - Volume 64, Pages [19] Sotille, M, Justificando o PMO nas Organizações. In: Barcaui, A. (Org.). PMO:Escritórios de Projetos, Programas e Portfólio na prática. São Paulo: Editora Brasport, p [20] Xavier, C. M.;Vivacqua, F. R.;Macedo, O. S.;Xavier, L. F, Metodologia de Gerenciamento de Projetos METHODWARE : abordagem prática de como iniciar, planejar, executar, controlar e fechar projetos.2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Brasport. [21] Wirick, D. W., Public-Sector Project Management: Meeting the Challenges and Achieving Results. New Jersey: Wiley.