The Enterprise Change Office

Main Menu

Using An Enterprise Change Playbook

If you spend time around change initiatives, you may hear comments about the PMO. Whether on LinkedIn or in office corridors, people sometimes express frustration, labelling PMOs as “bureaucratic,” “slow,” or even “pointless.” However, in theory, the PMO is designed to do the opposite: to help organisations implement initiatives more smoothly, consistently, and transparently.

So, why does the PMO often receive negative feedback? And what is an alternative?

Contents
Enterprise Change Playbook Example

An example of an Enterprise Change Playbook is provided here:

Click Here
Enterprise Change Playbook Example

One interpretation of what the “P” in “PMO” represents is P3O®. P3O® aims to assist organisations in establishing the necessary support structures for the successful delivery of their portfolios of change “programmes” and “projects”. 

In practice, many organisations lack a clear hierarchy of structures and consistent naming conventions. Change initiatives are often simply referred to as “projects,” and the terms “projects” and “programmes” are used interchangeably without a clear rationale. In some cases, a so-called “portfolio” is treated as little more than a list of projects.

This inconsistency between projects and programmes leads to confusion in governance and management. When language is used inconsistently, executives, sponsors, change teams, and stakeholders may not have a shared understanding of scope, accountability, or outcomes. This can increase the risk of duplication, poor oversight, and missed benefits. Such confusion can also result in misunderstandings regarding the role of the organisation’s PMOs.

What Is Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices (P30®)

One of the significant contributions of the Office of Government Commerce was the development of the P3O® (Portfolio, Programme, and Project Offices) framework, first published in 2008.

Read More

While a PMO is typically understood as a “Project Management Office”, it may have been established to support a programme, a portfolio, or even a Centre of Excellence (CoE) in P3O terminology. However, the focus of such a PMO may be on cost, time, and quality rather than on the broader activities associated with an initiative.

Common Reasons For The Negative Perceptions Of PMOs

Some view a PMO as the “Project Police.” Rather than being seen as a supportive partner that helps teams succeed, it is often perceived as a group that enforces rules, demands excessive reporting, and hinders progress. For delivery teams working under pressure, the PMO can feel more like an obstacle than an ally.

Common reasons for the negative perception are:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

PMOs can spend excessive time focusing on templates, forms, and checklists, leading people to forget their primary purpose — to facilitate smoother and more effective project delivery. When the emphasis on paperwork overshadows its value, frustration can quickly arise.

If a PMO fails to demonstrate how projects align with the organisation’s broader strategy, it risks being perceived as merely an administrative function rather than a catalyst for results.

A common pitfall for many PMOs is rigidity. They often stick to a single method, even when teams require more flexible approaches. This inflexibility can make the PMO seem disconnected from the needs of the organisation.

PMOs frequently communicate primarily with leadership, neglecting to engage with the teams responsible for actual project delivery. This can create the impression that the PMO’s role is simply to generate reports for senior management, rather than to support teams in successfully completing their projects.

When a PMO is viewed negatively, it can have significant consequences. Teams may resist its involvement, and leaders might choose to bypass it when making decisions. As a result, the PMO may struggle to demonstrate its value and justify its budget. Over time, this situation can lead to increased staff turnover, and the PMO risks being quietly dismantled.

Flipping the Narrative

It doesn’t have to be this way. A well-functioning PMO can be a game-changer. Rather than merely enforcing rules, it can act as an enabler. Instead of overwhelming teams with reports, it can provide valuable insights that empower leaders and teams to make better decisions.

The most effective PMOs:

  • Adapt their methods to align with the organisation’s culture;
  • Clearly connect initiatives to strategic goals;
  • Offer practical support and guidance that teams find useful;
  • Build credibility by employing individuals who understand the delivery process;
  • Communicate openly with both leadership and delivery teams.

These principles are central to the Project Management Institute’s comprehensive publication, “Project Management Offices: A Practice Guide“, released in 2025.

The practice guide provides definitions for a Portfolio Management Office and a Program(me) Management Office, but does not address how a Project Management Office interacts with these functions. In fact, the guide does not define what a project is. Instead, it categorises “PMO Services” into three groups: strategic, tactical, and operational. It then suggests how these categories can be applied across the domains of “portfolios”, “program(me)s”, and “projects”.

Although the practice guide does not explicitly define Organisational Change Management, it indicates in several places how a PMO can support organisational change. It also references the Project Management Institute’s sister publication, “Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide”. In this guide, organisational change is defined as:

“A comprehensive, cyclic, and structured approach for transitioning individuals, groups, and organizations from a current state to a future state with intended business benefits. It helps organizations integrate and align people, processes, structures, culture, and strategy.”

This sister practice guide underscores that organisations can survive and thrive by adopting a disciplined approach to “portfolio”, “program(me)”, and “project” management, along with responsive, flexible, and effective change management within that context.

The Enterprise Change Office

The publication “Project Management Offices: A Practice Guide” does a commendable job of dispelling negative perceptions of what a PMO is and demonstrating how a well-tailored PMO can significantly add value to an organisation in effectively and efficiently executing its strategy. However, it seems that the publication has not reached as wide an audience as it deserves.

This blog, daschange.info, adopts a broad definition of organisational change and argues for a holistic and integrated approach to its management, facilitated by an overarching function. To emphasise this distinction, the blog refers to this function as an Enterprise Change Office.

This term highlights that the responsibilities of this function extend far beyond the mechanics of projects. It emphasises its role in supporting strategic change, making it clear that change involves much more than just plans and milestones; it also includes adoption, culture, and outcomes. Ultimately, the best label for this function is one that resonates with the specific organisation and effectively positions it as a crucial partner in transforming strategy into reality.

error: Content is protected !!
The Office of Government Commerce And P3O®

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) was a UK government body established in 2000 to promote efficiency and best practices in public sector procurement, project management, and programme management. One of its significant contributions was the development of the P3O® (Portfolio, Programme, and Project Offices) framework, first published in 2008. This framework provides principles and guidance on designing and operating effective support structures for delivering change. P3O® was created in response to the growing need for organisations to align their strategies with execution and to standardise the roles of PMOs across different contexts.

In 2014, the stewardship of the OGC’s best practice portfolio was transferred to AXELOS, a joint venture between the UK Cabinet Office and Capita. AXELOS continues to maintain and publish the official P3O® guidance, with the most recent version being “Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices: P3O® Guidance” (AXELOS, 2013).

The guidance outlines a hierarchy of structures, which is summarised in Exhibit 1. It also notes that “projects” can stand alone and do not need to be part of a “programme”.

Exhibit 1: P30® Hierarchy

Does First-Order And Second-Order Change Still Apply?

A valid question is whether these concepts, developed in a different era, remain relevant today. Organisations now operate in environments described as VUCA – Volatile, Complex, Nonlinear, and Continuously Changing. Recently, BANI – Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible – has joined VUCA in describing such conditions. Does thinking from the 1970s and 1980s still provide value?

These concepts remain useful because First-Order and Second-Order Change classify what is being changed, not the environment in which change occurs.

An organisation in a highly uncertain environment may continually adapt its processes, structures, technologies, and capabilities, while its underlying assumptions and principles remain intact. Regardless of the extent or complexity, such adaptations are considered First-Order Change as defined here.

At times, environmental changes may challenge these underlying assumptions. When an organisation must reconsider how it creates value, exercises authority, allocates resources, defines its identity, or manages accountability, it enters the realm of Second-Order Change.

This distinction does not require change to move neatly from one stable state to another. Continuous adaptation, experimentation, and emergence can all occur within First-Order Change. The distinction is analytical, focusing on what is changing rather than the timing or frequency of change.

The boundary between these types of change may not always be clear, especially when ongoing adaptation starts to challenge the organisation’s underlying assumptions. However, the distinction remains analytically valuable: it clarifies whether change occurs within the existing Governing Logic or if that logic itself is being reconsidered.

VUCA and BANI offer different ways to describe organisational environments, but they do not replace the need to ask a fundamental question: Are we changing the organisational system within its existing logic, or does that logic itself require reconsideration?

Linda Ackerman and Three Types of Change

Linda Ackerman developed an influential distinction between Developmental, Transitional and Transformational Change in Ackerman (1986). At the time, she was primarily an Organisation Development practitioner and consultant.

Ackerman defined Developmental Change as improving existing conditions. Transitional Change involves moving from a current state to a clearly defined new state, with the transition managed over a controlled period. In contrast, Transformational Change results in a new state that emerges over time and is not fully known in advance.

This distinction is important because it makes transformation qualitatively different from continuous improvement or implementing a set organisational design. The three types of change are explored in Figure 2.

Developmental Change Improvement of what is; new state is a prescribed enhancement of the old state. 26_11
Transitional Change Design and implementation of a desired new state that solves an old state problem; requires management of the transition process to dismantle the old state while putting in place the new state; managed timetable. 26_12
Transformational Change

Market requirements force fundamental changes in strategy, operations, and worldview.

New state is unknown - it emerges from visioning, trial and error discovery, and learnings.

New state requires fundamental shift in mindset, organising principles, behaviour, and or culture, as well as organisational changes, all designed to support new business directions.

Critical mass of organisation must operate from new mindset and behaviour for transformation to succeed and new business model or direction to be sustained.

 		26_13

Figure best viewed on tablet or above

Adapted from Ackerman (1986) and Ackerman Anderson (2016) 

Figure 2: Ackerman’s Classification Of Change

On this website, daschange.info, Ackerman’s Developmental and Transitional Change are considered forms of First-Order System Change, while Transformational Change aligns with Second-Order Transformational Change. This mapping is an analytical interpretation provided by this website, and not part of Ackerman’s original model:

  • Developmental and Transitional Change are treated as forms of First-Order Change, since both can occur while the underlying organisational order remains substantially intact.
  • Transformational Change is associated with Second-Order Change, where that underlying order itself is changing, and the eventual future state cannot necessarily be specified in advance.

References

Ackerman, L. S. (1986) ‘Development, Transition, or Transformation: The Question of Change in Organizations’, OD Practitioner, 18(4), pp. 1–8.

Ackerman Anderson, L. (2016) ‘Organization Development and Transformation: What It Takes’, in Rothwell, W.J., Stavros, J.M. and Sullivan, R.L. (eds.) Practicing Organization Development: Leading Transformation and Change. 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 60–78

Jean Bartunek And Michael Moch And The Orders Of Change

The Organisational Development scholars Jean Bartunek and Michael Moch developed the distinction between different orders of organisational change from a cognitive perspective. In Bartunek and Moch (1987), they examined how the concept of schemata could help explain different forms of organisational change.

Schemata are organising frameworks through which people understand and interpret events. Bartunek and Moch described First-Order Change as incremental change occurring within schemata already shared by organisational members. Second-Order Change involves modification of those shared schemata themselves.

They also introduced Third-Order Change, which they described as developing the capacity of an organisation’s members to recognise their existing schemata and change them as circumstances require.

Their work extended the distinction between First-Order and Second-Order Change by highlighting the importance of how organisational members interpret their environment. It demonstrated that fundamental change may require altering the shared frameworks through which organisational reality is understood, not just structures, processes, or behaviours.

References

Bartunek, J. M. & Moch, M. K. (1987) ‘First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), pp. 483–500.

Amir Levy And Second-Order Change

Amir Levy was an organisational theorist whose work in the 1980s helped develop the distinction between First-Order and Second-Order Change specifically in relation to organisations.

Levy (1986) distinguished between changes within an existing organisational framework and Second-Order Change, which involves more fundamental organisational transformation. He characterised Second-Order Change as multidimensional, multilevel, qualitative, and discontinuous, involving a shift in organisational paradigm.

Together with Uri Merry, Levy developed these ideas further in Levy & Merry (1986). Their work examined organisational transformation through a range of perspectives, including organisational paradigms, culture, myths, purpose and approaches to managing Second-Order Change.

Levy’s work was instrumental in defining organisational transformation as conceptually distinct from extensive or incremental change. Transformation involves a qualitative shift in the organisation and its underlying paradigm, not just the scale or quantity of changes.

References

Levy, A. (1986) ‘Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization’, Organizational Dynamics, 15(1), pp. 5–23.

Levy, A. & Merry, U. (1986) Organizational Transformation: Approaches, Strategies, and Theories. New York: Praeger.

Paul Watzlawick And The Two Orders Of Change

Paul Watzlawick was a psychologist, communication theorist and influential figure at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. Working with John Weakland and Richard Fisch, he drew on systems theory to examine why attempts to solve problems sometimes leave the underlying conditions that generate them unchanged.

Watzlawick et al (1974) distinguished between First-Order and Second-Order Change. First-Order Change occurs within an existing system: its components, behaviours or processes may change while the rules governing the system remain substantially intact. Second-Order Change alters the system itself by changing the rules, assumptions or relationships through which it operates.

This distinction was further developed and applied to organisational change by Levy, Bartunek, and Moch. Ackerman, meanwhile, introduced a related framework distinguishing Developmental, Transitional, and Transformational Change.

Watzlawick et al. provides an important conceptual foundation for the Two Orders of Organisational Change used within this website.

References

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H. & Fisch, R. (1974) Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Ecosystem