Will A.I. Kill the PMO? Part 3 in Our A.I. in PM Series

If you’ve followed this series so far (See Part 1 and Part 2 on the PM College blog), you’ll know that we’re looking at both sides of the Artificial Intelligence in project management debate. I’m not ready to sign on as an enthusiast, but there are some powerful arguments to be made for its positive effects. Still, as someone who remembers the hype that the World Wide Web would bring about global peace and unity, I’m taking it all with a grain of salt.

That said, the comprehensive study of A.I. in project management that I cited earlier in the series has some interesting observations about how A.I. may—or may not—change the role and capabilities of the PMO. Looking at their findings in the context of our recent State of the PMO 2022study, two plausible predictions emerge:

1. Low-performing PMOs (as defined by the State of the PMO study) are likely to become increasingly irrelevant as AI automates most project management data processing and reporting tasks.
2. High performers, on the other hand, have the potential not only to survive but to achieve even greater capabilities.

The study's eight co-authors are split on the question of how PMOs will be affected, but this seems to be because some of them view PMOs as administrative overhead--bean-counters and fact-checkers whose roles will be handily usurped by the rapid and accurate data collection and analysis of A.I. Looking at the profile of PMOs represented in our State of the PMO study, it’s clear that the low-performing PMOs fit that description. Their top practices include convening meetings, compiling reports, and calculating project performance ... all tasks that a bot might take over.

Maybe the study authors who foresee a bright future for PMOs have more experience with high-performing PMOs, where business-savvy communicators align work with strategy, creatively address risks and opportunities, and nurture talents in their project staff. They stress that human relations skills and creativity will be very difficult to replace with mere software, and that giving project leaders less busywork and more time to focus on important issues and responsibilities related to strategy, culture, and professional development will put their roles far beyond the reach of today's A.I.

In our recent webinar, there were clues about how these two PMO models differ. We asked webinar attendees to respond to a number of interactive polls throughout the event. Not everyone participates in these, of course, and a webinar audience is a self-selected group of highly motivated/interested parties. Still, when you see that, among Enterprise PMO leaders in the group, 58% report that more than 75% of their project managers report to the PMO, it's a clue that these organizations are in step with a major trend among high performers: the centralization of project talent. By contrast, among the departmental PMOs, most had fewer than half of the organization's project managers under their direct management.

Another of the webinar polls asked audience members to informally gauge their PMO’s maturity on a 1-5 scale. Of the 28% who scored at Level 1, those with departmental PMOs were over-represented, while the 16% who scored themselves as Level 4 or 5 were primarily EPMOs. I feel like this audience was quite honest about their process maturity, as more than half of them rated their PMO at Level 2 or 3 — exactly where we have come to expect to see maturity when our consulting practice assesses it.

So, if you are worried about A.I. and your future, we'd advise following the path of high-performing PMOs, whose profile is clear: strategic, forward-looking, highly capable business leaders focused on creating value.

And for more insights from our webinar, tune in to this blog next week, when we will answer three thorny questions from our attendees.