PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
October 2016
759
P
roject
M
anagement
In the Geospatial Community
By Raquel Charrois PMP, CP, CMS | EVP
Regardless of the phase of development a company is in, the
project management component plays a key role. What that
role specifically entails within a given organization is driven
primarily by the desires, objectives and philosophies of its
leadership. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the
project manager role in one business is not the same as in
another.
In the years that I have been working in project management,
I am constantly reminded of these differences. They become
very apparent when interviewing new candidates for a
project management role. Distinct differences in what their
previous job requirements and expectations were vs. my own
expectations for the current project management opening
become clear.
That isn’t to say that any one job requirement or expectation
of a project manager is necessarily better than another; but
it certainly points out areas that could be improved when
measured against the PMBOK
®
Guide process groups. Those
process groups include Initiating, Planning, Executing,
Monitoring and Controlling, and Closing. The process groups
span the entire project lifecycle, within each process groups
there are relevant knowledge areas. Knowledge areas define
the processes and or activities involved to execute a project
successfully. It is against those that we can measure the
expectations and success of project managers.
So what are some key areas that we consistently see
significant differences in project manager roles?
One is in the organizational structure.
The PMBOK
®
Guide defines five categories of organizational structure that
any organization or company falls into. They are: functional,
weak matrix, balanced matrix, strong matrix or projectized.
An area that dramatic differences can be seen in a project
managers’ role is in an organizations operation. Each of the
five categories defines the project managers’ role differently.
As with anything there are strengths and weaknesses
to be found within each of the organizational structures.
The direct influence of those strengths and weaknesses on
The Project Management Professional (PMP)
®
and the Geospatial Profession – The Role of the Project
Manager
an organization are driven by the company’s leadership,
company size, and to a lesser degree the company’s maturity
relative to its development of project management processes.
For example, a project manager that is looking to move
from a weak matrixed organization (assuming that is their
only experience) to a projectized one will find very different
expectations in their role as project manager due to the very
nature of what category that organization falls into.
In the weak matrixed organization, the structure is such that
the project manager has no direct control over the resources.
They have an indirect influence on them, but ultimately
the resources do not report in to them. As a result, they
cannot unilaterally make the choice to allocate them at their
will as needed to ensure project success. In a projectized
organization structure the project manager will have direct
and complete control over all elements of the resources.
If we assume that all project managers, by virtue of their
title alone, have equal project management skills and
experiences we then set the project manager and our
operation up for a very rough time. Using the above example,
the project manager would be going from an organization
where there was no need for an understanding of resource
planning, resource management, or personnel management
to be successful to one that demands those very things. In
a projectized organization a project manager that has no
experience managing resources or with staff management
would be unqualified and unprepared.
Another is in the project cost management.
Financial
responsibility is another area that there are often distinct
differences. Financial information in general is considered
sensitive. Some organizations are willing to allow the project
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
Vol. 82, No. 10, October 2016, pp. 759–760.
0099-1112/16/759–760
© 2016 American Society for Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing
doi: 10.14358/PERS.82.10.759
