In the context of PMO (Project Management Office) functions, performance indicators serve as critical tools to measure the effectiveness and success of the PMO's activities. The best practice is to use two to four performance indicators per function during each evaluation cycle. This ensures that the evaluation is comprehensive enough to provide valuable insights without creating unnecessary bureaucracy or excessive control, which can hinder flexibility and innovation.
A balanced number of indicators allows organizations to monitor the essential aspects of each function while maintaining efficiency and adaptability. By focusing on 2-4 indicators, PMOs can achieve a manageable level of control without overwhelming the team with too much data or analysis, which can be counterproductive. This approach aligns with the principle of tailoring and agility in project management, where processes and metrics should be adapted to fit the context of the work, providing maximum benefit with the least effort.
This recommendation is derived from the PMBOK Guide and related frameworks like Ricardo Vargas' PMO methodologies, which emphasize focusing on value, minimizing waste, and maintaining a lean and effective governance structure.

The success of projects under the PMO (Project Management Office) mandate is not always a direct reflection of the PMO's success. This relationship depends heavily on the specific roles and responsibilities of the PMO. The PMO can play several roles, ranging from support and guidance to actual project management execution, and each role influences how project outcomes correlate to PMO performance.
If the PMO's main function is limited to providing tools, templates, or basic oversight, then it operates more as a support function. In this case, the success of individual projects may not directly translate into a measure of PMO success because the projects' performance relies primarily on the project managers and teams rather than the PMO itself. Using a correlation between project outcomes and PMO performance would not make sense in this context.
However, if the PMO is more involved in critical project decisions, such as prioritization, resource allocation, and governance, then project success could be more directly linked to the PMO's effectiveness. In this case, successful projects could reflect the PMO's ability to support or steer the organization towards achieving strategic goals.
A nuanced understanding of the PMO's role is necessary to assess its performance fairly. Therefore, while the success of projects might increase the perception of the value of the PMO, it is only a partial indicator, depending on what specific functions the PMO is executing.

Defining PMO functions based on stakeholders' benefit expectations ensures alignment with organizational goals and maximizes relevance. Rigidly adopting predefined models or benchmarks may not address the unique needs of the organization, whereas tailoring functions fosters value delivery.
References:
* PMI's Organizational Project Management (OPM) framework.
* The Standard for Portfolio Management - Customized approaches for PMO function design.

The outcome of thePMO maturity assessmentis presented in three dimensions-strategic, tactical, and operational-because maturity in these areas often evolves independently. The PMO may be mature in operational aspects like process execution while still developing its strategic role within the organization. This multidimensional assessment provides a complete view of the PMO's strengths and areas for improvement, ensuring balanced growth across all critical functions.