In previous posts in this series, I talked about how change management is rightly stratified throughout the organization and how each change management process shares certain, very specific structures.
In this post, I’d like to wrap that up by looking at the ramifications of this phenomenon.
To review, we identified that each change management organization at each tier of the organization shares the same functions:
- Problem Sensing
- Supply/Demand Modeling
- Decision Making
Then doesn’t it make sense to embrace that structure and actually create a framework around it? To essentially catalog and develop a community of practice around problem sensing, and to make that knowledge available to each identified change management office within the organization?
Similarly, if each of the change management offices have to do some form of supply/demand modeling, doesn’t it make sense to catalog the different mechanisms and tools in use, and perhaps even to provide standardized resources and practices around how to model supply and demand? For instance if one part of the organization has embraced Theory of Constraints, wouldn’t it make sense to educate the other parts of the organization in the same model?
What’s an organization to do? Why implement a Meta PMO, of course.
The Meta PMO would serve the role of process repository, advisor, and toolmaster for each of the identified structures common to all change management offices, whether they be authorized “PMOs” or change management structures in the ITIL definition of the word.
Tomorrow….back to the technical with a review of specific functionality in the Project Server 2010 portfolio analysis module.