How to set up an Agile PMO to best support the transformation

The instantiation of an Agile centric PMO at the outset of an agile transformation can help bolster the depth and breadth of the changes. Many practitioners reiterate that agile is a very experiential methodology and that there is a fair need to suspend disbelieve while trying the first agile project. Accepting these sentiments, it makes sense that the creation of a support mechanism simultaneously with the initiation of the transformation would be of great value.

In similar veins, we also state that the best way to inculcate the new methodology is to have one or more experienced mentors on the team, constantly able to bolster individuals when doubts arise. If this is appropriate for the team members, why not for the project managers too? By establishing a PMO made up of a mentor and some or all of the project managers working on agile projects, both a support network and an oversight board are created. Their responsibility remains to provide check and balance to the agile. The recommendation is to choose a period that is at least as large if not larger than the maximum iteration length amongst the teams participating (monthly, perhaps). The rationale for this is to be able to review the previous iteration and any issues that were present there and make recommendations on handling them in the future. By setting up the periodicity this way, there will always be at least 1 entire iteration to review and projections on the next to consider.

Establishing a peer group gives the PMs an informal network from which to seek help outside of the PMO reviews while helping them all mature and learn from each other’s experiences. Once the peer group gets large enough, the actual PMO review responsibility can be rotated through the group with the mentor and several different PMs being responsible each time.

The actual content of the review becomes simply reviewing the trendlines for the Burndown and Burnup charts and asking for explanations on anomalous behavior on either. If the charts imply confidence of meeting the business’ expectations, then the review is short and sweet. If either adequate explanations can not be put forward or leading indicators belie satisfactory conclusions, then a longer discussion is entered into in order to help the PM identify interventions that will change the course of the project. It remains the PMs responsibility to steer the team, but as with any retrospective, independent view points often help make the path more obvious.