Srđan Atanasijević – Comtrade Group, Comtrade Digital Services, Dublin, Ireland
Tatjana Atanasijević – Comtrade Group, Comtrade Digital Services, Dublin, Ireland
Monika Zahar – Comtrade Group, Comtrade Digital Services, Dublin, Ireland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/ITEMA.2019.171

At Comtrade, Project Management Organization (PMO) is committed to providing the highest
standard of project management services to guide projects from initial planning and design through
engineering and construction and finally to execution and approvals.
One of the first steps of successful project governance is to develop and agree with customers the appropriate
engagement model, which is typically determined by the client and by the type of its business
environment that dictates the pricing model.
However, these agreements alone do not ensure satisfying results. PMO needs to be the driving force
for establishing good and mature project governance management as a significant investment and crucial
element for the success of every project and business growth.
This paper examines current pricing and engagement models, focusing on balancing its risk and benefits,
discusses how a PMO shape project governance model to ensure project realization for a specific
pricing model would. Research provides strategic approaches on how to identify and set a useful
performance measurement metric and track key performance indicators aligned with diverse business
models toward project goals accomplishments to build long-term success.

Keywords

Project Management, Project Management Office, Project Related KPI, Project Governance,
Software Engineering Engagement Models, Performance Management Framework

​References

[1] Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual
framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
1382-1394.
[2] Muller, R. (2017). Project governance. Routledge.
[3] Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The relationship between project governance and project
success. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 613-626.
[4] Alie, S. S. (2015). Project governance: #1 critical success factor. In PMI® Global Congress
2015. Orlando, Florida: Project Management Institute.
[5] Association for Project Management. (2012). APM body of knowledge. (6th ed.). Buckinghamshire:
Association for Project Management.
[6] Harmon, R., Demirkan, H., Hefley, B., & Auseklis, N. (2009). Pricing Strategies for Information
Technology Services: A Value-Based Approach. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). Big Island, HI, USA: IEEE.
[7] Atanasijevic, S. (2016). Approach to project management in dynamic reality – Differences
between traditional and agile approaches. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10519.27047/1.
[8] List, B., Bruckner, R. M., & Kapaun, J. (2005). Holistic software process performance measurement
from the stakeholders’ perspective. In 16th International Workshop on Database
and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05) (pp. 941-947). Copenhagen, Denmark: IEEE.
[9] Montero, G., Onieva, L., & Palacin, R. (2015). Selection and Implementation of a Set of Key
Performance Indicators for Project Management. International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research, 10(18), 39473-39484.
[10] Atanasijević, S. (2013). Case Study: How to establish global PMO Office. doi: 10.13140 /
RG.2.2.18446.82247/1.
[11] Dragićević, D., Milosavljević, A., & Atanasijević, S. (2013). Combination of traditional and
agile project management methodologies on software project of health information system
in Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia. In 16. International Conference of Quality
Management. Belgrade: ICDQM.
[12] Atanasijević, S. (2019). Project Management on AI Projects. doi: 10.13140/
RG.2.2.10771.02080/1.