KM in project-based & temporary organisations: Part 10 – How well are PMOs doing with knowledge management and transfer?

This article is part 10 in a series of articles on knowledge management (KM) in project-based and temporary organisations.

The second article in this series looks at the role of the Project Management Office (PMO) in overcoming the barriers to knowledge sharing and transfer in project-based and temporary organisations. It draws on a 2019 doctoral dissertation¹ to put forward a framework for the implementation of knowledge management (KM) processes and components at various maturity levels of PMOs.

A recently published paper² adds to our understanding of the role of PMOs in KM in project-based and temporary organisations. Author Kieron Chadwick carries out a systematic literature review³ of academic journal articles published between 2014 and 2024. Following a keyword search and the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 55 articles were identified for analysis.

Findings

From his analysis of the 55 academic journal articles, Chadwick reports the following findings:

1. PMO implementation and maturity

• PMOs are either born out of organisational projectification, or recommended because of a previous project.
• PMO uptake remains mixed. This may be due to standalone project controls being suffice for some organisations to achieve maturity, a lack of clear link between PMO usage and project management competence, or lengthy contracting processes.
• The term “project management maturity” (PMM) encompasses subcategories such as electronic
  maturity, which can be captured via self-assessment in the digital management of e-projects.
• PMOs can vary in PMM due to differing organisational contexts, for example, the number of projects within the mandate, PMO age, and optimum location in the hierarchy to link operational and strategic levels.
• In the early days of PMO implementation, staff optimisation and allocation are impacted. Similarly, the core function of the PMO may not be understood early on. However, as PMM grows, project management knowledge increases in line with maturity.
• Organisations should seek to accelerate PMO PMM.
• There is a large difference in PMM levels between organisations with and without PMOs, with culture and strategic integration indicators of high PMM.
• Several ways are suggested to climb the levels of maturity⁴. One is OPM3⁵, an organisational PMM model to acquire knowledge, assess it, and manage improvements. Another is a learning orientation, which also improves overall performance and growth.
• There are different options for measuring PMO PMM and impact. One is the Project Management Office Centre of Excellence (PMOCoE)⁶. Another is establishing a 5-factor measurement model considering HR and culture, strategic alignment, delivery support, knowledge management, and organisational capabilities. A further option is measurement against the competency dimensions of intersocial, stewardship, and personal development.

Governance and stakeholder management

• Ineffective governance emerges as a concern. There are a high number of failed Agile projects, with limited use of lessons learnt from earlier or parallel projects. This reinforces a need for formal and informal knowledge governance mechanisms and reporting. Similar findings, as well as solutions to address them, are also reported in other articles in this series.
• Multiple PMOs may exist in large organisations, possibly under a Programme and Project Management Office (PgPMO), each with varied connectivity and power. Expertise may be distributed ineffectively across these multiple PMOs.
• Multiple PMOs often operate in silos due to ineffective collaboration, and staff holding multiple, conflicting roles in a matrix setup. On the other hand, a matrix structure can contribute to KM and knowledge sharing if a central model to capture, store, and share knowledge is present.
• PMOs may also span inter-organisational boundaries. To improve internal and external links, the development of communities of practice (CoPs), network administrative organisations (NAOs)⁷, and industry-university collaborations may be formed. Networks such as these can be an empowering bridging mechanism for cross-geographical networks, however, recruiting experts to join is a challenge, and they are a complex interplay to execute.
• Some literature focuses on culture rather than structure. At the heart of culture is effective four-way stakeholder communication; horizontal, vertical up, vertical down, and external, however, communication can be challenging due to dispersed multicultural teams and technical complexity.
• A relationship between communication and gender emerges. Transition to a gender-orientated PMO (GPMO) is advocated, with gender audits and integrated perspectives, for example, consideration of meeting locations and time which may impact women. Feminine orientation may also achieve increased PMO acceptance due to alignment with adopters.
• PMOs may further enhance adoption via 3-dimensional PMO governance (3DPMO), focusing on areas of strategy, resources, and knowledge. Activities associated with this may include measuring maturity of stakeholder relationships. for example, capitalising on customer opinions and responses.

Knowledge management and transfer

• Uncertainty in projects derives from a lack of knowledge, and PMOs play a strategic role in managing such uncertainty. While they do this by incorporating knowledge into overall portfolio risk, literature is split on what the PMO role beyond this is.
• The PMO role depends somewhat on whether it is temporary or permanent. Temporarily, an information-centric PMO can act as an information brokerage during unprecedented transformations. On a permanent basis, they may be deployed to plug knowledge flow gaps between operation and strategy.
• Terminology is inconsistent. For example, terms include “moderator,” “facilitator,” or “supporter” of knowledge transfer. However, the ability to classify knowledge into assets and render this efficiently is a consistent message.
• A tacit vs explicit knowledge debate emerges from the literature. Explicit knowledge may be elicited in a straightforward manner. However, tacit knowledge is challenging to both elicit from project contributors, and diffuse amongst employees. This may be due to high amounts of informal, non-codified communications. Such knowledge requires strong PMO interpretability capability, and articulate dissemination to ensure usability. One way of achieving this dissemination is via storytelling, an inexpensive mechanism for managing knowledge.
• The importance of knowledge transfer infrastructure is emphasized. This consists of people, tools,
  routines, and systems. A PMO-operated document management system (DMS) must be integrated into practices, and be simple and responsive. This may be referred to as a knowledge management system (KMS). Both are based on the knowledge transfer processes of create, store, share, and apply.
• Organisational culture emerges as a factor in system embracement. Culture, alongside creation of awareness and importance, and trust, make up the 3 knowledge transfer enablers. For example, the knowledge transfer culture created via an IT tool to report lessons learned, albeit with data security risks.

Article source: Chadwick, 2025; CC BY-NC 4.0.

Header image source: Malachi Witt on Pixabay.

References: