This chapter presents a description of the literature relevant to the topic under study. It takes a look at the concept of project management maturity and also project performance and how they can be measured. It then proceeds to discuss the possibility of a correlation between the project management maturity level of an organization and the actual performance of the organization in executing projects.
From the discussions that follow, it is clear that there is a general agreement that project management is a good management methodology that ensures better efficiency in the delivery of projects. With regards to how to determine the project management maturity level of an organization, significant research has been done. Similarly much research has been done and is still been done in the area of measuring project success. There is however little research on how the project maturity level of an organization impacts its performance. Will continued investment aimed at improving the project management maturity level of an organization improve the project performance of the organization?
2.2 Project Management Maturity
2.2.1 Defining Project Management Maturity
Several contrasting definitions of project management maturity have been given in project management literature. Three views of project management maturity dominate current definitions found in literature.
Definitions by Kerzner (2004) and Cooke Davies (2004) give a process (action) oriented view of project management maturity. Kerzner (2004) define project management maturity as the development of systems and processes that are repetitive in nature and provide a high probability that each project will be a success. Cooke Davies also giving a process view defines project management maturity as the extent to which an organizational project management capability has explicitly and consistently deployed processes that are documented, measured, controlled and continually improved. This process oriented view of project management implies there is a known and predictable group of processes that support project management; that these processes will behave predictably in a controllable system, thus minimizing variations and increasing efficiency (Cooke-Davies 2004a, p. 4).
Saures (1998) define project management maturity as the organizational receptivity to project management. Hartman and Skulmoski (1998) likewise extend project management maturity from focusing predominantly on actions (i.e. processes) to one where competence and maturity are knitted together to increase project success.
The third view of project management defines project maturity as a sum of action, attitude and knowledge. Andersen and Jessen (2003) give such a definition.
From these various views on maturity, it is evident there is no widely supported view of 'maturity'. 'Maturity' seems to be a fairly diffuse, intangible concept. (Saures 1998, p. 362).
In conclusion, three factors are known to influence project management maturity;action, knowledge and attitude. Action refers to the organizations ability to act and decide, knowledge refers to the ability of to deliver the task in question whilst attitude is the eagerness to perform and take part in a particular task.
2.2.2 Measuring Project Management Maturity
While some authors are of the view that maturity in project management is possible to achieve by organizations developing and improving their project management capability, others are of the view that it is impossible to achieve maturity in project management. Andersen & Jessen (2003) posit that in the real world, we will not find the fully matured organization; no one has reached the stage of maximum development and no one will. Although there is little agreement on the possibility of achieving project maturity, it is generally agreed in project management literature that the benefits derived from project management increase in proportion to how well project management processes are used.
The project management maturity assessment can provide a methodological and deliberate mechanism of the competency health of an organization in a detailed, objective and formalized fashion (Rad & Levin 2006). Maturity models are the assessment tool by which maturity can be assessed.
Some researchers have criticized maturity models. (Hillson 2003) argues that with their emphasis on standard project management bodies of knowledge, they can be overly disciplinary, impractical and overwhelming as methodologies. In addition their complex structure can make assessments difficult to perform, interpret and implement. (Hillson 2003) further argues that models typically capture explicit knowledge as documented in the model levels without capturing intangible assets and implicit knowledge.
In spite of its shortcomings, project management maturity assessment can provide a methodological and deliberate mechanism of the competency health of an organization in a detailed, objective and formalized fashion (Rad & Levin 2006b, p. 4). (Skulmoski 1999), is in favour of this view arguing that organizations that embark on improving their capability by following some maturity model can benefit by improved project performance, improved marketing opportunities and a structured path to improvement.
2.3 How is Project Management Maturity Level of an Organization Measured?
Maturity models are the assessment tools by which maturity may be accessed. Several maturity models that have been designed including Construction Project Management Maturity Model (Fengyong & Renhui 2007), Evolutionary Software Project Management Maturity Model (Sukhoo, Banard & Van der Poll 2007), P3M (OGC 2006a) and Prince2 Maturity Model (OGC 2006b). Other models are The Berkeley Project Management Maturity Model (Crawford 2006), OPM3 (PMI 2003), Project management Process Maturity project management process maturity Model (Kwak & Ibbs 2002), Strategic Project Management Maturity Model (Kerzner 2001), ProMMM (Hillson 2001) and Open Maturity Model (Lubianiker, 2000). There are at least 35 models on the market that are currently being used by organizations to assess the maturity of their project management processes (Cooke-Davies, 2002).
2.3.1 Benefits of using Maturity Models
In addition to maturity models been used to assess the current level of project management practice, they also provide a means by which an organization gradually improve its potential to deliver projects successfully and repeatedly. Rad & Levin (2006) posit that maturity models themselves provide the incentive and roadmap for formalized project portfolio management, a library of best practices and a project team pool of competent and qualified project team professionals.
2.3.2 Downside of Maturity Models
Several researchers have critiqued maturity models, with Jugdev and Thomas (2002) giving the most thorough criticism. First maturity models don not offer enough granularity to measure progress. In addition maturity models focus mainly on standard project management practices as outlined in project management bodies of knowledge. This tends ot make them over disciplinary and impractical as methodologies. Hillsong (2003) put forward that their complex structure makes assessment difficult to perform, implement and interpret.
Maturity models have been criticized as overly concentrating on work processes ignoring human resources aspect. Finally maturity models have been criticized as tools in raising awareness of a problem but do not solve them.
2.4 Maturity Models and How they Measure Maturity
Cooke Davies (2003) defines three types of project management maturity models.
The first are those that assess project management processes based on knowledge areas such as those contained within the PMI PMBoK guide (2004) but with the adoption of some variant of the Capability Maturity Model.
The second are those associated with technical delivery processes and assessed through a series of five discrete stages (performed, managed, defined, quantitatively managed and optimizing).
The third are those that relate to total organizational maturity and allow individuals organizations to assess the maturity of processes on individual projects. Some types of project management maturity models and how they are used in assessing organizations are given below.
2.4.1 Project Management Process Maturity
The Project Management Process Maturity project management process maturity model measures, locates and compares an organization's current PM maturity level (Ibbs and Kwak 1997). It is used as a benchmark for organizations that apply PM practices. Ibbs & Kwak (1999) posit that this model has been applied to varied industries and organizations and have proven to be effective. This model is based on the Project Management Institute (PMI)'s standard for project management.
The level of maturity in this model range from 1 to 5, with 1 representing least maturity and 5, highest level of maturity. The maturity assessment in this model is based on the nine PM knowledge areas (integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resource, communication, risk and procurement) and five processes (initiate, plan, execute, control and close) of project management as stipulated in the PMBOK.
2.4.2 The PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM)
The PRINCE2 Maturity Model allows organizations to appraise their current use of the PRINCE2 project management method and also make improvement plans. The first version of this model was released in 2004 and the most recent version in 2009 (OGC, 2012). The model is owned by the Office of Government Commerce, UK.
Similar to the (PM)2 model, P2MM uses a five-level maturity framework to depict the level of maturity of an organization. Seven process perspectives (Management Control, Benefits Management, Financial Management, Stakeholder Engagement, Risk Management, Organizational Governance, Resource Management) are assigned at all levels of maturity. Within the attributes are a number of generic and specific attributes.
The model is designed in such a manner that it acknowledges strength of organizations and also highlights weaknesses so that improvement can be made.
2.4.3 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) was developed jointly by the Software Engineering Institute, US government and members of industry. This model is used mainly by the software industry. The model combines various previous models.
CMMI comes with two representations, the staged model and the continuous representation. The staged model groups process areas into 5 maturity levels similar to its ancestor Capability Maturity Model for software development. Level one denotes a least mature organization whilst level five represent the most mature organization. The continuous model on the other hand is similar to the systems engineering capability maturity model, defines capability within various profiles. CMMI consists of 25 process areas with each process area consisting of 1 to 4 goals. Each goal is also comprised of practices.
2.5 Choice of Model
The project management process maturity model is adopted for this survey. The Project management maturity model has well defined processes available to measure impartially and implement PM practices both in organizations and against different industries (Kwak & Ibbs, 2000).
An advantage of this model is that it can be applied to any organization implementing PM practices and processes. Other maturity models like the Capability Maturity Model have specific audiences. However the (PM)2 model has been successfully applied to varied organizations.
Another reason for the choice of the (PM)2 model in this survey is that unlike other models like PRINCE2, it is not designed to measure extent of use of particular methodologies. Rather it can be applied to any firm using project management methodologies in its operation.
2.6 How Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model is used to assess maturity
The (PM)2 model depicts maturity on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents a least mature organization and 5 the most mature organization in terms of project management. At each level the (PM)2 model breaks PM processes and practises into nine PM Knowledge Areas (Integration, Scope, Time, Cost, Quality, Human Resource, Communications, Risk and Procurement) and five PM Phases (Initiate, Plan, Execute, Control and Close Out) using the categorization of the Project Management Body of Knowledge [PMI 2004]. The processes and practises of an organization at each of the maturity levels based on the nine categorizations are discussed below.
Level 1
Integration- An organization at level 1 does not prepare project plans in a structured format and has no project management information system. In such organizations the appointment of project managers is on an informal basis.
Scope - Once there is a project a project manager is allocated to the project.also there are no formalized methods to initiate and control projects.
Time -With regards to time management, there are no standard templates for project schedules. The process of schedule development is unrealistic and out of sequence.
Cost - at level one there is no process to estimate cost. It is likely that even if such a process is set in place, the results would most likely be over or under budget.
Quality - It is common for most works to be redone due to poor quality of work. There are no quality audits, quality assurances, or quality control processes. Quality checkups are limited to onsite inspections.
Human Resource - Organizations at this level have several conflicts between functional project managers as there is a struggle with the concept of project driven organization resulting in conflicts between functional project managers.
Communication - at this level there are no formal performance reporting systems. Process reviews are conducted only if that is specified in the contract otherwise performance review is limited to just status reporting.
Risk - there are no formal risk management plan. Rather risks are identified after they occur.
Procurement - Procurement plans are not made together with a market condition analysis.
Level 2
Integration - there are informal PM tools and practices.
Scope - work breakdown structure is informal. Processes for scope change control are established.
Time - Level 2 organizations are able to develop informal schedules for planning. In addition, activity lists are available.
Cost - there exist an informal cost estimating tools and techniques.
Quality - Quality management systems are also informal. Issues of non compliance are only dealt with if identified as a result of mandatory inspections and audits.
Human Resource - Human resource planning at this level is also informal.
Communication - Performance reports and reviews are also done informally.
Risk - Project risked are also informally identified and analyzed.
Procurement - communication with suppliers and procurement management in general is also done on an informal basis.
Level 3
Integration - there are formal PM tools and practices.
Scope - There is a formal work breakdown structure. Also roles of the project manager is clearly established and also is a project charter.
Time - Level 3 organizations are able to develop formal schedules for planning
Cost - there exist an formal cost estimating tools and techniques.
Quality- there is formal quality management systems. Quality planning and assurance activities are conducted to identify problems to do with quality.
Human Resource - Human resource planning at this level is also informal. Customers and suppliers are seen as members of the project team.
Communication - Performance reports and reviews are also done formally. In addition data on performance is regularly reviewed in order to assess project.
Procurement - communication with suppliers and procurement management in general is also done on a formal basis. Also procurement data are documented,
Level 4
Integration - An organization at level 4 has its processes synchronized across the different project management knowledge areas.
Scope - scope management is synchronized to ensure project succeeds. Processes to change and verify scope are documented.
Time - there are formal processes to control schedule.
Cost - resource planning as well as cost estimating is done in a formal manner. These processes are synchronized.
Quality - the At level 4, the objectives to achieve high quality project management processes and project quality are integrated. Also, project progresses toward accomplishing project quality are quantified, implemented, and integrated
At level 4, improvements in both individual skills and team capabilities are integrated to perform effectively. Organization is rewarded and recognized by project-oriented teams
At level 4, information on scope, schedule, cost, risk, quality, human resource, and procurement are integrated in project performance reporting.
Also, communication management processes and techniques are integrated with an organizational structure
Risk - at this level experience gained from earlier projects is used in identifying controlling and responding to risks. Sources that could cause risk are reviewed for the use of the other knowledge areas. In addition, risks identified and planned response are synchronized across various projects.
Procurement - there exist relationships between buyers and suppliers at various levels of the project. In addition, owners and suppliers establish long- term associations to enhance project delivery.
Level 5
Integration - integration management at level 5 is planned, optimized and also sustained for continuous improvemen.
Scope - Scope management similarly is planned and optimized. In addition the entire process is continual to ensure continuous progress of PM processes.
Time - Formal time management tools are established. These tools are optimized and continued to enhance the continuous improvement of processes.
Cost - continuous and optimized cost estimating tools and techniques are put in place to ensure sustained PM process improvement.
Quality - just like the other knowledge areas the quality management system is also optimized and continued to ensure continuous process improvement.
Human Resource - just like the other knowledge areas the human resource management system is also optimized and continued to ensure continuous process improvement.
Communication - just like the other knowledge areas the communication management system is also optimized and continued to ensure continuous process improvement.
Risk - At level 5, the risk management system is also optimized and continued to ensure continuous process improvement.
Finally, the procurement management system is also optimized and continued to ensure continuous process improvement.
