Contribution by: Cédric Kahl

The PMO is typically a support and governance function that facilitates project planning and execution, often within a matrix organization. When Project Managers (PMs) report to the PMO rather than to functional leaders such as Product Managers or Technical Managers, it promotes greater neutrality and objectivity in project decision-making.

This structure helps ensure that PMs are not influenced by the specific interests of one function and can better uphold cross-functional alignment, timeline accountability, and budget discipline. It also supports consistency in methods, tools, and reporting standards.

However, a potential drawback is that PMs may feel less embedded in the technical or product context, which can limit their ability to make fast, context-specific decisions. To mitigate this, it is essential that PMs actively cultivate strong collaboration with functional leads.

Contribution by: Cristina Niculescu

Experience showed me that Project Managers should report to Product Managers and not to PMO. Why? Because they need to be close to the product, to the team and to the client, they need to understand the value and outcome our product offers. In case of reporting to PMO, the ownership and dedication will not be at a desired level.

Contribution by: David Vincenti

Team members reporting to Product/Technical managers reflects two organizational priorities: functional excellence over executional excellence and executive involvement over delegation of authority. This is neither right nor wrong, but it must be conscious. It requires higher negotiation skills in PMs and a clear escalation path for PMs to use in appeals when Product/Technical resist providing support or relief.

There is no right answer here, but management must be aware of what their organizational design imposes on teams – and requires of themselves!

Contribution by: Kris Sprague

The ideal organization structure for project management depends on the organization’s specific needs and project nature, but generally, a matrix structure with project managers reporting to both a Project Management Office (PMO) and a functional leader (Product/Technical Manager) offers the best balance.

This approach provides a centralized PMO function to manage projects across departments while also maintaining functional expertise.

Project Managers reporting to a PMO:

Pros:

• • Centralized project management expertise and methodologies.
  • Consistent reporting and governance across all projects.
  • Standardized project management processes and best practices.
  • Resource pooling and sharing across projects.
  • Improved visibility and control of project portfolios.

Cons:

• • Potential for PMO to become a bottleneck or slow down decision-making.
  • May not be as effective for highly specialized or complex projects.
  • Risk of PMO becoming disconnected from the specific needs of different projects.

Best Practices:

• • Establish clear roles and responsibilities for the PMO and project managers.
  • Ensure the PMO provides support and guidance, rather than being a control center.
  • The PMO should focus on strategic project management and portfolio management, while project managers focus on project execution.

 Project Managers Reporting to Product/Technical Managers:

Pros:

• • Stronger alignment between project execution and product/technical goals.
  • Improved communication and collaboration between project managers and functional teams.
  • Faster decision-making and responsiveness to changing project requirements.
  • Increased accountability for project outcomes and deliverables.

Cons:

• • Potential for project managers to become overly focused on the specific needs of a product or technical team, potentially neglecting other project priorities.
  • May not be as effective for cross-functional projects or projects that require specialized expertise.
  • Risk of functional managers prioritizing their own departmental needs over project goals.

Best Practices:

• • Establish clear roles and responsibilities for project managers and functional managers.
  • Ensure project managers have the authority and resources to manage their projects effectively.
  • Functional managers should support and collaborate with project managers, rather than micromanaging them.

Matrix Structure (Combination of both):

 Pros:

• • Combines the benefits of both PMO-led project management and functional team alignment.
  • Enhances flexibility and leverages specialized skills across multiple projects.
  • Provides clear authority and accountability for project managers.
  • Improves communication and collaboration between different teams.

Cons:

• • Potential for conflicts in authority and communication due to dual reporting lines.
  • May require more complex organizational structures and processes.
  • Risk of project managers feeling overwhelmed or unsure of their responsibilities.

Best Practices:

• • Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of project managers, PMO, and functional managers.
  • Establish clear communication channels and reporting procedures.
  • Provide training and support for project managers to navigate the matrix structure effectively.

While each organizational structure has its own strengths and weaknesses, the matrix structure, where project managers report to both a PMO and a functional leader (Product/Technical Manager), generally offers the best approach for most organizations.

This structure balances the need for centralized project management with the need for functional expertise and alignment. The specific implementation of the matrix structure should be tailored to the organization’s specific needs and project nature.