I'm a Project Coordinator whose position was created for me when I was recently hired. I work for the Operations department of an insurance company's main financial hub. While we're called Operations, it's more of a catch-all for projects involving compliance, process improvement, and outsourcing management. Those three arms all act independently (and sometimes interdependently) of one another, but report to the same director. I was hired to help the director keep track of/report on activities across these arms.
My first coup was getting the VP to give us licenses for PM software. Projects until this point had been managed on a combination of Excel, MS Lists, PowerBi, Planner, and other one-time use applications. There was no visibility across the department, because each arm hated the other's system/tool and refused to use it. I'm in charge of bringing all the project trackers under one umbrella.
The main issue I'm having is that two of the arms don't really follow (or need to, for that matter) follow a traditional project management process, but the third runs a pretty rigid Scrum-style process. I'm new to PM work -- this is my first job -- so I'm perhaps a little overly open to receiving advice from people who want to be helpful. The third arm wants me to deploy the exact same rigid Scrum across the entire department, and don't understand why it can't be done (because of course, they can't see the other projects going on that aren't theirs). The other two departments don't really need a rigid system so much as they need their myriad checklists brought into one place. I'm more concerned, and more importantly, the director is more concerned with gaining visibility and seeing overlap than with everyone using the same rubric. I personally don't see how Scrum will benefit teams who handle continuously repetitive tasks as opposed to delivering products/tools/dashboards/etc., which makes sense to have a more disciplined approach.
Bottom line: it's my job to set up the PM framework, but am I wrong in thinking that different teams/project types require different types of management? I don't want to shoehorn extra admin tasks on teams who are working just fine with "fancy checklist" management, but is this a wrong take?