For project / programme/ portfolio managers these days, it's bad enough trying to work out which qualification you should have given that everybody from BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT to the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) has some kind of project management qualification, but in the UK the Office for Government Commerce (OGC) seems to have the biggest voice given the scale of public sector projects and the need to have either Prince 2 and / or Managing Successful Projects (both trademarked) in the overall toolset. Then there is certification from APM that is the British representative in the International Project Management Association (IPMA), or from the Project Management Institute (PMI) which is based in USA but has chapters in the UK. Whether qualified or certified or both, you will probably have touched upon the PMO concept in your professional development. Of course you could have an academic qualification, but don't get me started on those ...
Now there is the new P3M3 offering as part of the OGC layered management model, which should be aligned to the PMO entity. Does that 'P' work with projects, programmes or portfolios, or all of the above? Clearly within the PMO there is a coordination function, but is that primarily for project support and administration, or for project assurance, or is it for actual management of the portfolio of projects and programmes?
I admit to being not au fait with some of this, and your views are welcomed (especially if you work in a PMO!). BCS PROMS-G will be looking to run another event on this in the future, and I do know that APM is planning to produce a guide this year on Portfolio Management which I will read avidly. PMI are apparently slightly more developed in terms of their thinking on portfolios and their management, although the definitions are not exactly the same, and not everybody uses the same terms (I have heard that British Telecom refers to a portfolio as a 'programme of programmes'). For now, it is back to the OGC and its qualifications and resources to try to make some sense of it all, and keep up with an incredibly fast developing professional discipline. Perhaps this is why we need two bodies of knowledge?
