what I see is that project managers feel more new managers on top of them other than just the director & executives - more overhead. After all we are just human beings and we have our ego and any project manager that senses he is losing his grip on his project would fight it by instics.

I think one of the major problems comes from a lack of role definition.  the PMO, whether in a portfolio management or program management capacity can provide trememndous support and efficiency to a project manager, but only if everyone is clear on what the respective roles are.

For example, the PMO should be able to provide a more analytical level of reporting on the status of a program (resource utilization, cross project risks, etc) than a PM who is focused on a single initiative.  When this clear demarcation does not exist or is not clear to all stakeholders, tension becomes inevitable.

Additionally, PMOs need to be flexible enough to let professional PMs do their job - a common set of best practices or a methodology is a good thing in that it creates consistency in the way that projects are managed, but project management is as much art as it is science and you cannot remove the ability of the PM to tailor approaches to specific situations and still be successful.

Interesting you should say PMs hate PPM.  I see PPM as a function or tool of Governance.  It allows an organization to prioritize and select projects for initiation.  It also monitors active project performance.  Ok, this area is a pain for a PM because of the need for status and the constant questioning from above.  I have been in both positions...the PM supplying information and the PMO waiting for the information.  Both positions can be frustrating because of the lack of clarity to the goal of the information sharing. 

When things are funtioning well, the information is provided just by the PM and the project team doing their normal work.  If status is done right, it is not an unnatural act...it is a function of doing your job.  Status reports should not have to be "created" but should be the normal outcome of a periodic update.  The best status/performance situations I have been in involved a real sharing of information.  The PMO/PPM team got their information freely and the project team provided the information by doing their normal job.  There was a lot of trust in the team and providing the information was not like going through an IRS audit or being on trial.  A free flow of information, help, issue escalation, and resolution resulted from the sharing of information.  Steering committees were actively involved with the projects and used the status as meeting agendas...to help the project. 

In this situation, PPM/PMO/Project Status can be a great thing.  Teams had the autonomy to provide solutions and the confidence to ask for assistance.  It was really a win-win. Unfortunately, I have only seen this in few environments and is the result of a strong PMO, roles definition, trust, accountability, and a common goal of wanting to get the job done right. 

Great comments!

I would add that Portfolio Management requires continous use and buy-in at the management levels above the PMs' before the PMs' see the value.