Receipt date: 16/07/2023 Revision date: 08/11/2024 Acceptance date: 12/12/2024

Introduction

Project management has emerged as a central element in organizational development, especially in an increasingly globalized and competitive business environment. Organizations, regardless of their size or sector, seek to maintain their competitiveness in changing and dynamic markets by implementing strategies that ensure efficiency and success in the execution of their projects. In this context, the creation of Project Management Offices (PMO) has gained relevance as a strategic tool to standardize processes, improve decision making and ensure greater alignment between projects and business objectives (Aubry, Hobbs, & Müller, 2010). By providing centralized control, PMOs enable organizations to more effectively monitor key performance indicators and better manage resources, contributing to higher performance throughout the project lifecycle.

However, despite their theoretical advantages, the actual effectiveness of PMOs remains a matter of debate. Several studies have pointed out that the results obtained by companies that implement PMOs can vary significantly depending on internal and external factors, such as organizational culture and flexibility in resource management (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). While it has been shown that a well-implemented PMO can standardize best practices and improve overall performance, its success is not guaranteed. The complexity of the environment in which PMOs operate and their ability to adapt to the particularities of each organization play a crucial role in their impact (Unger, Gemünden, & Aubry, 2012).

Recent studies have highlighted the importance of PMOs evolving towards more strategic roles, adapting to constantly changing business environments. The Project Management Institute's (PMI, 2023) Pulse of the Profession 2023 report highlights how organizations that prioritize interpersonal skills in their PMOs, also called "power skills," tend to achieve greater project management maturity and achieve significant bottom-line benefits. Along these lines, The PMO Leader's PMO Success in 2023 and Beyond study emphasizes the need for PMOs to adopt agile and strategic approaches, enabling them to effectively align with business objectives in a dynamic context. These trends show that the role of the PMO must go beyond operational oversight, aiming at delivering organizational value in a tangible way.

Other recent analyses highlight the relevance of digitization and data management in PMOs. For example, Assystem's PMO Insights Report (2023), based on surveys of professionals in sectors such as construction and engineering, reveals that digitization and data control are essential to the effectiveness of PMOs today. Complementarily, a PwC (2023) analysis of the "PMO of the future" proposes that these offices integrate a focus on benefits realization and alignment with the organization's strategic objectives. These trends reflect the need for a renewed vision in the implementation of PMOs, especially in environments where there are resource constraints or organizational challenges, as is the case in Santiago, Dominican Republic (Wellingtone, 2023).

In Santiago, Dominican Republic, many companies have adopted PMOs to improve project management in an attempt to increase operational efficiency and meet their strategic goals. However, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of PMOs in this specific context is limited. Unlike in more developed environments, where the implementation of a PMO follows standardized guidelines and with access to greater resources, in Santiago companies face challenges such as limited availability of specialized personnel, insufficient funding and, in many cases, cultural resistance to change. These factors can significantly influence project outcomes, and suggest that the presence of a PMO alone does not guarantee success in all cases.

Previous studies have highlighted the ability of PMOs to align projects with the strategic objectives of organizations, bringing value to the business by optimizing processes and efficiently managing resources (Müller, Gluckler & Aubry, 2013). However, it has also been observed that the effectiveness of PMOs depends on their ability to adapt to the particular needs of each organization and the degree of integration they have with other levels of management (Too & Weaver, 2014). In many cases, PMOs that do not achieve this flexibility may generate additional bureaucratic processes, leading to delays and additional costs, contrary to their initial purpose.

Globally, reports such as the State of the PMO 2022 have pointed to an evolution of PMOs towards more strategic structures, which not only focus on operational management, but also play an active role in the formulation and monitoring of corporate strategies. However, despite this evolution, the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2022) reports that only 42% of organizations with a PMO consistently meet their time and budget objectives, reinforcing the idea that the existence of a PMO alone is no guarantee of success. This challenge is even more pronounced in regions such as Latin America, where economic and cultural conditions can significantly influence the implementation and effectiveness of PMOs (Kerzner, 2017).

In this context, the present study seeks to fill a gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of PMOs in private companies in Santiago, Dominican Republic. In examining whether PMOs contribute to project success, this study will also explore how factors such as organizational culture, change management, and available resources influence project outcomes. With this research, it is hoped to provide a stronger knowledge base to serve as a guide for organizations seeking to implement or improve their PMOs in similar environments.

Method

This study adopted a quantitative approach designed to investigate the relationship between the existence of Project Management Offices (PMO) in private companies in Santiago, Dominican Republic, and their impact on success in meeting various key project management objectives. The research was cross-sectional in nature, since the data were collected at a single point in time. This methodology made it possible to capture an accurate picture of the conditions prevailing in the companies during the period in which the study was carried out.

For this purpose, a structured questionnaire was designed and distributed to a sample of 57 private companies belonging to different economic sectors in Santiago. The questionnaire was subjected to an internal consistency analysis using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, obtaining a value of 0.904, which indicates a high level of reliability of the instrument and ensures that the questions used consistently reflect the aspects evaluated. The questionnaire included a series of closed questions that explored different aspects related to project management. These aspects included the presence or absence of a PMO in the company, as well as the degree of compliance with various project objectives, such as adherence to schedule, adherence to budget, compliance with the requirements established for the scope, and customer satisfaction. The questions were formulated on a 5-point Likert scale, allowing participants to express their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied"

As for the selection of the sample, a non-probability sampling based on convenience was used, which allowed the inclusion of companies that were accessible and willing to participate in the study. The population of this research included private companies in the city of Santiago, Dominican Republic, registered with the Asociación de Industriales de la Región Norte Inc. (AIREN), which has a total of 172 companies in its public database. From this population, 7 financial institutions were excluded because, although they have branches in the Northern region, their main headquarters are not located in this area. Also excluded were companies whose main operation is managed from the province of Santo Domingo, such as Cervecería Nacional Dominicana and Ambev Dominicana, as well as companies located in cities near Santiago. After these exclusions, a sample of 78 companies in Santiago was obtained, of which 57 participated in the study. The final sample was composed of companies from various industrial sectors, which provided a representative view of the impact of PMOs in the Santiago business context. This sectoral diversity offered the opportunity to capture a broad spectrum of experiences and approaches to PMO implementation and management, thus enriching the results and conclusions of the study and providing more generalizable findings for the region.

Data collection was carried out through electronic surveys, which were sent primarily to project managers and other key decision makers within the participating companies. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the participants and to promote sincere and honest responses, the surveys were completely anonymous. Respondents were given a period of three weeks to complete the surveys, which maximized the response rate, thus contributing to the robustness of the data obtained.

Subsequently, the data collected were subjected to statistical analysis, which included descriptive techniques and correlation analysis. Initially, the normality of the data was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. These tests revealed that the data did not follow a normal distribution (p < 0.05). Because of this finding, it was decided to use Spearman's correlation coefficient, which is appropriate for data that do not meet the assumption of normality. This coefficient was used to examine the relationships between the variables of interest, specifically the relationship between the existence of a PMO in the companies and the degree to which several key project objectives were met.

The correlation analysis focused on exploring how the presence of a PMO influenced success in four key areas of project management. These areas included the degree of compliance with the schedule, i.e., the success in completing the projects within the initially established deadline; compliance with the budget assigned to the project; success in delivering the required products and services according to the scope and requirements initially defined; and, finally, the level of client satisfaction with the final results of the project. Spearman's coefficient provided a reliable measure to identify possible relationships between these variables, without the need to assume a normal distribution in the data. In addition, significance values (p < 0.05) were analyzed to determine whether the observed correlations were statistically significant, which provided a solid basis for interpreting the study results and drawing relevant conclusions about project management in the context of PMOs

Results

This chapter presents the findings obtained from the analysis of the data collected from the 57 companies participating in the research. The purpose of this section is to describe and analyze in detail the responses obtained in relation to the presence of Project Management Offices (PMO) and their impact on the fulfillment of the main project objectives, such as schedule, budget, scope, client satisfaction and satisfaction of the team involved in the execution process.

To this end, a comprehensive correlational analysis was conducted, designed to identify the relationships between the presence of a PMO and the success of projects in each of these key aspects. This approach offers a comprehensive and nuanced view of how PMOs directly and indirectly influence the results obtained, considering the particular characteristics of the business environment in Santiago, Dominican Republic, and the differences in the implementation of these offices in local organizations.

Presence of a PMO (Project Management Office) in the Companies

Table 1 and Figure 1 present the distribution of companies according to the existence of a Project Management Office (PMO). The data collected reflect whether the companies have a PMO, do not have a PMO, or have another equivalent structure.

Table 1
Presence of a PMO (Project Management Office) in Companies

PMO in the Company	Number of Responses	Percentage (%)
No PMO	33	57.89%
Another	4	7.02%
If it has PMO	20	35.09%
Total	57	100%

Of the 57 respondents, 33 indicated that their companies do not have a PMO, representing 57.89% of the total responses. This group constitutes the majority of respondents, suggesting that many companies have not yet established a formal PMO for managing their projects.

On the other hand, 20 participants indicated that their companies do have a PMO, representing 35.09% of the responses. This percentage shows a significant presence of PMOs in the companies, although not a majority.

In addition, 4 respondents indicated that their companies have another structure or approach to project management, representing 7.02% of the total responses.

Figure 1
Presence of a PMO (Project Management Office) in the companies

These results indicate that most of the companies surveyed have not yet implemented a formal PMO. However, a significant proportion do have a PMO, which may signal a growing recognition of the importance of a dedicated project management structure.

Correlation Between the Existence of a PMO and the Compliance with the Timeline

The data analysis began with the evaluation of the normality of the variables "Existence of a PMO in the companies" and "Success in meeting the schedule", using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. The results, summarized in Table 2, indicated that both variables do not follow a normal distribution. The significance values for "Existence of a PMO" were 0.361 and 0.709 in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, respectively, while for "Success in meeting the schedule", these values were 0.227 and 0.877. As both values are less than the threshold of 0.05, it is concluded that the variables do not have a normal distribution, which justifies the choice of Spearman's correlation coefficient to measure the relationship between them. In addition, a scatter plot was used to visualize the relationship between "Existence of a PMO" and "Success in meeting schedule" (Figure 2). This graph shows an upward trend, reflecting the weak positive correlation observed in the data, and provides a complementary visual representation to the statistical analyses.

Table 2
Results of Normality and Spearman's Correlation Tests between the Existence of a PMO and the Compliance with the Schedule

Variable	Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic (Sig.)	Shapiro-Wilk Statistic (Sig.)	Spearman's Correlation Coefficient	Significance (p-value)
Existence of PMO	0.361 (0.000)	0.709 (0.000)	0.25	0.061
Successful Timeline	0.227 (0.000)	0.877 (0.000)	-	-

Figure 2
Relationship between PMO and Schedule Compliance

Subsequently, Spearman's correlation analysis was performed, obtaining a coefficient of 0.250 between the "Existence of a PMO in the companies" and "Success in meeting the schedule". This value indicates a weak positive correlation between the two variables, suggesting that, in general, as the existence of a PMO increases, success in meeting the schedule also tends to improve slightly. However, the associated significance value (p = 0.061) is slightly above the 0.05 threshold, suggesting that this correlation is not statistically significant in this context, although it is close to being so. This could indicate that with a larger sample or under other conditions, the relationship could be marginally significant.

In summary, although a weak positive correlation was observed between "Existence of a PMO" and "Success in meeting schedule", the results are not statistically conclusive enough. It is possible that other factors play a more decisive role in the success of the chronogram, so future studies should consider the inclusion of additional variables or a larger sample size to further investigate this relationship.

Correlation Analysis Between the Existence of a PMO and the Achievement of the Project Budget Objective.

The analysis of the relationship between "Existence of a PMO" and "Meeting the project budget target" began with the evaluation of the distribution of the variables, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. The results, presented in Table 3, revealed that neither variable follows a normal distribution, with significance values less than 0.05 in both cases. For the variable "Existence of a PMO", the values obtained were 0.361 and 0.709 in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, respectively. The variable "Compliance with the project budget objective" presented values of 0.165 and 0.924. Since the data do not follow a normal distribution, Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between these variables.

In addition, a scatter plot was generated to visualize the relationship between "Existence of a PMO" and "Project budget compliance" (Figure 3). This graph shows a slight upward trend, consistent with the very weak positive correlation obtained in the data, and helps to visually interpret the connection between the two variables.

Table 3
Results of normality and spearman's correlation tests between the existence of a pmo and compliance with the project budget

Variable	Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic (Sig.)	Shapiro-Wilk Statistic (Sig.)	Spearman's Correlation Coefficient	Significance (p-value)
Existence of PMO in the Company	0.361 (0.000)	0.709 (0.000)	0.163	0.226
Successful Budget Compliance	0.165 (0.000)	0.924 (0.001)	-	-

The Spearman correlation coefficient between "Existence of a PMO" and "Meeting the budget target" was 0.163, suggesting a very weak positive correlation between the two variables. However, the associated p-value (0.226) indicates that this correlation is not statistically significant, as it does not reach the 95% confidence level. This implies that, although a slight positive trend was observed, the relationship is not sufficiently conclusive to affirm that the existence of a PMO has a significant influence on budget compliance.

Despite the slight correlation observed, the results suggest that other factors, such as risk management or project team experience, may be playing a more decisive role in budget success.

Correlation Between the Existence of a PMO and the Achievement of Scope and Requirements Objectives

The analysis of the relationship between "Existence of a PMO" and "Compliance with scope and requirements objectives" began with the evaluation of the normality of the variables using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. The results obtained, which are consolidated in Table 4, showed that none of the variables follow a normal distribution. In the case of the variable "Existence of a PMO", the significance values were 0.361 in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and 0.709 in the Shapiro-Wilk test. Similarly, for the variable "Compliance with scope and requirements objectives", the values obtained were 0.184 and 0.923, respectively. These values, all less than 0.05, confirm the absence of normality, which justifies the use of Spearman's correlation coefficient, a suitable tool for nonparametric data.

Table 4
Results of Normality Tests and Spearman's Correlation between the Existence of a PMO and Compliance with Scope and Requirements Objectives

Variable	Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic (Sig.)	Shapiro-Wilk Statistic (Sig.)	Spearman's Correlation Coefficient	Significance (p-value)
Existence of PMO in the Company	0.361 (0.000)	0.709 (0.000)	0.334	0.011
Achievement of Scope Objectives	0.184 (0.000)	0.923 (0.001)	-	-

On the other hand, a scatter plot was generated to visualize the relationship between "Existence of a PMO" and "Compliance with scope and requirements objectives" (Figure 4). The graph shows a slight upward trend, reflecting the positive correlation observed in the data and allowing a visual interpretation of the connection between these variables

After applying Spearman's coefficient, a value of 0.334 was obtained, indicating a weak positive correlation between the existence of a PMO in the companies and the success in meeting the scope and requirements objectives. However, unlike previous analyses, this correlation is statistically significant, since the associated p-value was 0.011, i.e. below the 0.05 threshold. This finding suggests that the presence of a PMO may be positively related to the achievement of scope and requirements objectives, although the magnitude of this relationship is modest.

The consolidation of these results is presented in Table 4, where the values corresponding to the normality tests and Spearman's correlation are shown. Although the correlation is not particularly strong, its statistical significance reinforces the idea that the PMO could play a role in the successful achievement of these objectives in projects, offering a positive and relevant influence.

Figure 4
Relationship between the Existence of PMO and Compliance with Scope and Requirements Objectives

In summary, the results highlight the possibility that the existence of a PMO can contribute to improve the fulfillment of scope and requirements objectives in projects. However, it is important to consider that other factors may be involved in this process, which opens the door to future research that seeks to identify and better understand these additional influences.

Correlation between the Existence of a PMO and the Satisfaction of the Team, Client and End Users with the Project's Outcomes

The importance of a Project Management Office (PMO) in organizations has been the subject of several studies, which have explored its relationship to successful project delivery and the satisfaction of the various stakeholders involved. For example, Hobbs and Aubry (2007) highlighted that PMOs play a crucial role in providing methodological and administrative support, which can improve project performance. Also, more recent studies have indicated that the existence of a PMO may be associated with higher customer and project team satisfaction by facilitating process standardization and alignment of project objectives with expected outcomes (Too & Weaver, 2014). This analysis focuses on the correlation between the existence of a PMO and satisfaction in three key areas: the project team, the client and the end users. The results of the normality and correlation tests, consolidated in Table 5, provide an integrated view of how the PMO can influence these critical areas.

As the analysis of the results obtained deepens, it will be observed how the presence of a PMO can generate different levels of impact on the satisfaction of the different key stakeholders of the project. The sections that explore these relationships in greater detail will be presented below, starting with the project team's satisfaction, followed by the client's satisfaction, and finally the end-users' satisfaction with the results obtained.

Table 5
Results of Normality and Spearman's Correlation Tests between the Existence of a PMO and the Satisfaction of the Team, Client and End-Users

Variable	Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistic (Sig.)	Shapiro-Wilk Statistic (Sig.)	Spearman's Correlation Coefficient	Significance (p-value)
Existence of PMO in the Company	0.361 (0.000)	0.709 (0.000)	-	-
Project Team Satisfaction	0.349 (0.000)	0.796 (0.000)	0.2	0.135
Customer Satisfaction	0.321 (0.000)	0.826 (0.000)	0.233	0.082
End User Satisfaction	0.184 (0.000)	0.923 (0.001)	0.084	0.535

Project Team Satisfaction

The first aspect addressed is the relationship between the existence of a PMO and the satisfaction of the project team. It is hoped that a PMO, by providing support and structure, can contribute to greater satisfaction within the team. However, the results of the normality tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk) showed that none of the variables evaluated follow a normal distribution, with significance values of 0.361 for "Existence of a PMO" and 0.349 for "Team satisfaction". These results justified the use of Spearman's correlation coefficient, which yielded a value of 0.200, indicating a low positive correlation between PMO and team satisfaction. However, the p-value of 0.135 suggests that this correlation is not statistically significant.

Although the presence of a PMO may be associated with higher satisfaction in some contexts, the results of this analysis suggest that its direct impact on the perception of the project team is inconclusive. Other factors, such as team dynamics, leadership styles or project characteristics, could be having a more decisive influence on team satisfaction.

Although the presence of a PMO may be associated with higher satisfaction in some contexts, the results of this analysis suggest that its direct impact on the perception of the project team is inconclusive. Other factors, such as team dynamics, leadership styles or project characteristics, could be having a more decisive influence on team satisfaction.

Client Satisfaction with Project Results

Customer satisfaction is another crucial factor for the success of a project. In this analysis, we explored how the existence of a PMO could influence the client's perception of the results obtained. As in the case of team satisfaction, normality tests indicated that the variables do not follow a normal distribution, with significance values of 0.361 for "Existence of a PMO" and 0.321 for "Customer satisfaction". These results led us to use Spearman's correlation coefficient again.

The correlation coefficient between the existence of a PMO and customer satisfaction was 0.233, suggesting a weak positive correlation between the two variables. However, the associated p-value was 0.082, indicating that this relationship is not statistically significant. Although there is a slight trend toward higher customer satisfaction in companies with a PMO, the data are not conclusive.

Other factors may have a more significant influence on customer satisfaction, such as the quality of the delivered product or service, communication throughout the project, and on-time delivery. The existence of a PMO may contribute to a greater formalization of processes, but it does not seem to be sufficient to guarantee significantly higher customer satisfaction.

End-User Satisfaction with Project Outcomes

Finally, the relationship between the existence of a PMO and end-user satisfaction with project results was evaluated. Normality tests showed that neither variable follows a normal distribution, with significance values of 0.361 for "Existence of a PMO" and 0.184 for "End-user satisfaction". Again, Spearman's correlation coefficient was used.

The result of the analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.084, indicating a very weak correlation between the existence of a PMO and end-user satisfaction. The associated p-value was 0.535, which means that the observed relationship is not statistically significant. This suggests that the PMO does not have a significant impact on the end users' perception of satisfaction.

In this case, end users are likely to focus their attention on the quality of the product or service delivered, rather than on the management structure that supports the project. Elements such as ease of use, product functionality and satisfaction with performance could have a greater weight in the evaluation of results than the existence of a PMO. This observation, together with the correlations identified in the areas of team and customer satisfaction, suggests that although the PMO can bring benefits to project management, its direct influence on the satisfaction of the different stakeholders is limited.

In reviewing the results presented in Table 5, it is clear that, although the existence of a PMO may be weakly related to higher satisfaction of both the project team, client and end users, none of these correlations are strong or significant enough to claim that the PMO is a determining factor. In all cases, the correlation values were positive but low, and the associated p-values indicated that these relationships are statistically inconclusive.

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion 

This study explored the influence of Project Management Offices (PMO) on different key aspects of project management in companies in Santiago, Dominican Republic. The findings are then discussed in relation to previous studies and the practical and theoretical implications of the results are discussed. This discussion focuses on the adoption and effectiveness of PMOs in areas such as schedule, budget, scope and stakeholder satisfaction, highlighting both the advantages and limitations observed.

Presence of PMO in Companies

35.09% of the companies surveyed indicated having a PMO in place, suggesting a moderate adoption of this structure in the local business context. This result is consistent with previous studies showing that PMO implementation in developing regions tends to be more limited compared to advanced economies, where PMOs are seen as a standard practice in project management (Hobbs & Aubry, 2007). However, the low adoption rate observed in Santiago could be related to the perception that PMOs require significant investment in human and technological resources, which may be a barrier for smaller companies or those with budgetary constraints (Kerzner, 2017). In addition, the lack of knowledge about the tangible benefits that a PMO can bring may be contributing to the fact that many local companies choose not to implement this tool.

It is critical that companies that have already implemented a PMO continually evaluate its effectiveness and ensure that it is aligned with the organization's strategic objectives. PMOs should not be seen only as bureaucratic structures, but as facilitators of project success through the standardization of processes and the optimization of the use of resources. For companies that have not yet adopted a PMO, it is important to consider that the implementation of this office may take time and require specific adjustments to suit the particular needs of the organization.

Compliance with the Schedule

The finding of a positive but weak correlation between the existence of a PMO and schedule adherence (rho = 0.25) reflects the complexity of managing time on projects, even in environments with a formal project management structure. The lack of statistical significance in this finding suggests that, while PMOs may contribute to improved planning and schedule tracking, they are not the only factor influencing the temporal success of projects. Elements such as the experience of the team, the management skills of the project leader and the availability of resources play a crucial role in meeting schedules (Müller et al., 2013).

This result is consistent with the literature indicating that the PMO can be most effective when complemented with advanced technological tools for schedule tracking and ongoing staff training to improve their planning and execution skills (Too & Weaver, 2014). Companies that have implemented a PMO in Santiago could benefit from the integration of specialized time management software, as well as the promotion of an organizational culture that values meeting realistic deadlines.

Budget Compliance

The low and non-significant correlation between the existence of a PMO and budget compliance (rho = 0.163) underscores the need to strengthen financial capacity within project management. While PMOs can provide a structure for managing costs, this study suggests that their presence alone is not sufficient to ensure that projects stay within the allocated budget. Effective financial management depends on a combination of factors, including constant monitoring of expenditures, the ability to anticipate unforeseen costs, and the flexibility to adjust the budget when necessary (Unger, Gemünden & Aubry, 2012).

Many companies in Santiago are likely to face financial constraints that limit their ability to implement more robust cost control systems. Therefore, it is recommended that PMOs in these organizations consider implementing software tools that allow for better real-time tracking of expenses, as well as financial management training for project leaders.

Compliance with Scope and Requirements Objectives

The strongest finding of the study was the positive and significant correlation (rho = 0.334, p < 0.05) between the existence of a PMO and success in meeting scope and requirements objectives. This result suggests that PMOs play an important role in ensuring that projects are delivered according to agreed specifications. The standardization of processes provided by the PMO seems to be especially useful in scope management, allowing greater clarity in the definition of objectives and in the alignment of these with available resources.

This finding is consistent with studies indicating that well-structured PMOs can act as gatekeepers of project scope, preventing uncontrolled expansion of objectives from occurring (Kerzner, 2017). Companies in Santiago that already have a PMO in place could capitalize on this advantage by focusing on strengthening scope management processes, ensuring that client expectations are clearly defined from the outset and that there is rigorous follow-up to avoid deviations.

Customer and Team Satisfaction

Finally, the low and non-significant correlations between the existence of a PMO and customer (rho = 0.233) and project team (rho = 0.2) satisfaction suggest that the PMO alone is not sufficient to ensure high satisfaction in these groups. Rather than relying solely on the PMO structure, companies should pay attention to other factors, such as effective communication, organizational culture, and team dynamics (Müller et al., 2013). Client and team satisfaction can be further influenced by the quality of interactions and responsiveness to issues that arise during the project.

This finding reinforces the idea that the implementation of a PMO must be accompanied by efforts to improve the organizational culture, promoting a collaborative work environment focused on customer needs. In the Santiago context, companies could benefit from training in interpersonal and communication skills for project leaders, which could increase both team and client satisfaction.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings of this study have relevant implications for both project management theory and business practices in environments similar to Santiago. Theoretically, the results reinforce the idea that the implementation of a PMO can contribute to success in specific areas, such as scope compliance, but its effectiveness depends on additional contextual factors, such as organizational culture and resource availability. These results suggest that PMO theories should consider the importance of an adaptive and contextual approach for success in emerging markets. In terms of practical implications, this study underscores the need for companies not only to implement a PMO as a formal structure, but also to promote comprehensive management practices that facilitate communication, continuous training and the use of advanced technology. This is especially critical for organizations in resource-constrained environments, which can optimize their results by tailoring the PMO to their specific needs and fostering an organizational culture of project support.

General Conclusion

This study suggests that the presence of a PMO can influence some aspects of project management success, such as schedule, budget and stakeholder satisfaction, although this influence is not always decisive. The implementation of a PMO should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all solution to project management problems; rather, it should be integrated with other organizational practices that promote communication, flexibility and continuous learning.

The PMO showed a significant positive impact on meeting scope and requirements objectives, indicating that, when used properly, it can be a valuable tool to ensure that projects remain aligned with initial objectives. However, their impact on other key aspects, such as cost control and customer and team satisfaction, may depend on the integration of complementary practices and the maturity of their implementation.

Future research should focus on how to improve PMO implementation in resource-constrained environments, such as Santiago, and further explore how factors such as organizational culture, management flexibility and leadership can enhance the effectiveness of PMOs in different business contexts.

Limitations of the Study

Despite the significant findings, the study has some limitations that should be considered:

• Sample size: The sample was limited to 57 companies in Santiago, which may not be representative of all companies in the region or the country. More data could provide more robust and generalizable results.
• Cross-sectional design: The study was conducted at a single point in time, which precludes observing the long-term effects of implementing a PMO in projects. A longitudinal study could provide a clearer picture of how the effectiveness of a PMO evolves over time.
• Uncontrolled factors: Variables such as organizational culture, leadership and resource availability were not deeply explored in this analysis, but are likely to significantly influence project outcomes. These factors could have affected the relationship between the PMO and the success of the project.
• Reliance on self-reporting: Data were collected through surveys, which may lead to self-reporting biases, as respondents may have overestimated or underestimated the success of their projects.

These limitations offer opportunities for future studies, which could expand the sample, explore other organizational factors, and adopt a longitudinal approach to obtain a more complete picture of the impact of PMOs on project management.

Suggestions for Future Research

To enrich the understanding of the effectiveness of PMOs, it is recommended that future research expand the sample size and consider a longitudinal design, allowing the effects of PMOs to be evaluated at different stages and in different industries. In addition, it would be valuable to investigate additional factors that may mediate or moderate the relationship between PMOs and project success, such as the level of organizational maturity, the use of advanced technological tools, and the role of organizational culture. These approaches will contribute to a more precise understanding of the conditions under which a PMO maximizes its effectiveness and provide practical recommendations for implementation in different business contexts.

References

Aubry, M., & Hobbs, B. (2010). The Project Management Office (PMO): A Quest for Understanding. Project Management Institute.

Müller, R., Gluckler, C., & Aubry, M.(2013). Theoretical Approaches to Project Management. Project Management Institute.

PMI. (2021). Pulse of the Profession 2021: Beyond Agility. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse 

PMI. (2022). A roadmap to PMO excellence. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org 

PM Solutions (2022). The State of the PMO 2022. https://www.pmsolutions.com 

Too & Weaver (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8).

Hobbs, B., & Aubry, M. (2007). A Multi-Phase Research Program Investigating Project Management Offices (PMOs): The Results of Phase 1. Project Management Journal, 38(1).

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. & Müller, R. (2010). Project Management Office: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Project Management and Project Manager Performance. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 245-256.

Unger, B., Gemünden, H. G., & Aubry, M. (2012). The Three Roles of a Project Management Office: Their Impact on Portfolio Management, Program Management, and Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 608-620.

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Müller, R., Drouin, N., & Aubry, M. (2013). Theoretical Approaches to Project Management. Project Management Institute.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2023). Pulse of the Profession® 2023: Power Skills, Project Success, and the New Definition of Leadership. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse 

The PMO Leader. (2023). PMO Success in 2023 and Beyond. The PMO Leader. https://www.thepmoleader.com/blog/pmo-success-in-2023-and-beyond 

Assystem. (2023). PMO Insights Report 2023. Assystem. https://www.assystem.com/en/publications/pmo-insights-report 

PwC. (2023). What Will the PMO of the Future Look Like? PricewaterhouseCoopers. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/managed-services/library/pmo-of-the-future.html 

Wellingtone. (2023). Tendencias PMO para 2023. Wellingtone. https://wellingtone.es/tendencias-pmo-para-2023/