Project Management Maturity Models

Dear reader: my article is clearly not finished :) My next step is to include an example of an applied PMMM! 
-and of course finish the other sections and add references :)

Abstract

For an organisation to know its own strengths and weaknesses is key in being able to make improvements. This also applies to project management and project management is key to success for any organisation. As projects becomes more and more complex, it is necessary for any organisation to keep improving the competencies in project management in order to maintain competitiveness. Project management maturity models (PMMM’s) is a tool for exactly that. The model helps the organisation to learn about itself and making it aware of strengths and weaknesses. The result of the model is the assessment of which of five maturity levels the project management in an organisation is currently at, as well as creating a plan to achieve continuous improvements and higher levels of maturity. The tool is often used reactive as the strategy for project management often is run to failure. Often because the strategy for project management is not even considered, it is simply done. This raises the question if the model is used optimally? and if there is even more potential in using the model proactive? This article analyses the use and relevance of maturity models in project management. The key elements of the article are as follows;

• Purpose and potential (big idea)
  • Concept
  • PMMM as first step in changing culture
• Application of a PMMM
  • Reactive or proactive? – the optimal way of using the model
  • Workload versus results
• Limitations
  • Tailoring the model for a specific organisation

Big Idea

The basic idea behind PMMM’s is for an organisation to assess their current level of maturity of the project management performance. Typically, the models consist of five levels, where level 1 represents the lowest level of maturity and level 5 represents the highest reachable level of maturity. The definition and naming of the levels varies from model to model, though many use the original Carnegie Mellon maturity level definitions, which are as follows [Brookes & Clark 2009];

1. Performed/Awareness/ad hoc
2. Managed/ Repeatable
3. Defined
4. Quantitative managed/managed
5. Optimised

The level of maturity is appointed by comparing the reality with standards. The result of the assessment is then used to set a roadmap for the organisation to reach higher levels of maturity in their strive for success. The idea is, that the highest level of maturity, optimized, is setting the stage to continuous improvement. Whereas, the first 4 level are based on comparison to standards, and best performance with existing processes, level 5 focus on optimising the processes in project management, [Grobler 2006].

Concept

However, the above is a significant generic description of the idea behind the PMMMs. Firstly, the models did not just arise out of blue air. PMMMs have their origins in the Capability Maturity Model, developed by Software Engineering Institute (thus the abbreviation SEI-CMM). The SEI-CMM take base in the same five levels as listed above and was originally developed to use in software implementation projects. The need for maturity models in project management arose as a result of the eighties’ tendency for project failure and budget overrun as a consequence [Judgev & Thomas 2002]. This was the beginning of development of maturity models. Today, app. 30 PMMM’s exist, which can be divided into three types of models, which all erupts from the SEI-CMM. The first two both take base in the five levels of maturity. Whereas the third one, which is also the latest, is more complex and holistic.

The first type of model is named technical delivery process model. This type is the SE-CMM. As said, this model consists of five levels of maturity, which indicates the organisations current state. The level of maturity is appointed an organisation as the result of a thorough assessment of the organisation’s project management processes. The description of the level indicates the end state of the given level. When an organisation is appointed a given level, they have not yet reached the end state of the level, but are at the beginning state of the maturity level. As an example level 3 is described as “Base practices of the process are performed, but not rigorously planned and executed. Reactive response dominates the actions of the process managers. Performance of the organization is dependent on individual knowledge and effort.“ [Grobler 2006]. This means that if an organisation is at this given stage, they will create the roadmap to reach that description. The roadmap for instance will help the organisation move from acting reactive to being proactive. When being proactive you prevent firefighting (Danish term!?) and short term planning, which can both often be very costly for the organisation. A lot of other arguments to being proactive can be listed, however that is not part of the scope of this article and therefore it will not be discussed into details.

The second type of PMMM is named project management process model. This type of mode also uses the five level of maturity level, though it does so a little differently from the first one. The project management process models take base in project management standards and their processes and knowledge areas within the processes. An example of a project management process model is the one developed by Kerzner in 2001, who describes project management maturity as “a gradual progress from a basic knowledge of the nine knowledge areas and a single process of project management to a singular methodology across the company.” [Grobler 2006]. The five levels in this model are;

Level 1, common language 

the organisation does not recognize the benefits of project management - there is knowledge about project management terms but not necessarily the correct meaning of them – there is a lack of framework for decision making. [Grobler 2006].

Level 2, common processes 

the

Level 3, singular methodology 

bla bla

Level 4, Benchmarking 

bla bla

Level 5, continuous improvement 

bla bla

As illustrated in figure XX, level 3-5 are..

The last type is the organisational models. As mentioned above, this type of model is the latest bid of a maturity model for use in project management and is a more holistic one, that the two types described before. The reason is, that this type of models does not only consider project management but all of the organisation. One of the models within this type is the Organisational Project Management Maturity Model, abbreviated to OPM3, which states itself as “a mechanism to advance your organization’s strategic interests through the efficient and successful execution of projects” [Grobler 2006]. The idea is, that it is not adequate to improve the project management process, if the rest of the organisation is falling behind as they are as important together in being able to reach the organisation’s strategic goals. To be able to look at all of the organisation, this type of model includes eight business processes, where the first of them is project management. The others are as follows 2) programme management, 3) assurance of the management quality in project programme management, 4) assignment of a project or programme, 5) project portfolio coordination and networking, 6) organisational design, 7) personnel management and 8) business process management [Grobler 2006]. Now, all of the business processes’ maturity level are assessed and they are appointed a level from 1 to 5. The result can easily be illustrated with a radar chart where all of the business processes and their appointed maturity levels will be inserted. The radar chart will give a visual look of the organisation’s maturity level and point out where to act to improve the organisation’s overall performance.

PMMM as first step in changing culture in an organisation

Looking back at all the mentioned types of maturity models for use in project management, it is clear that the idea of using the models in order to assess why some projects currently fail is possible to realise with these models. One might fear, that this tool would only be used as an assessment and that the improvements would be hard to realise. Though, the models give an explanation of what needs to be done to reach a higher level of maturity. The aim is to make the maturity model the first step in changing culture in an organisation. To be able to change, it is key to know the current situation in details. Kotter suggest eight steps in successful change [REF: Kotter’s eight steps]. The first step is to establish a sense of urgency. The step is also known as the burning platform, claiming that if there is no need for change, a change will not be executed, but if the floor beneath you is burning, you will for sure move. However, sometimes, though the need for change is present, the need for it is just not realised. Realising the need for change is key, in being able to make improvements. In many cases, this tool is taken into use, when problems are rising and projects are failing. In situations like that, it can be accounted as a reactive action. … As project management becomes a more and more important business process to any organisation, and as it is – by some – seen as a way of gaining competitive advantage, one might say that the maturity level of an organisations project management performance and processes, should be assessed continuously to ensure improvements. This raises the question; how? –how to actually improve. For now, the result of the assessment is only the problems, but what about the solutions? This will be dealt with later on in this article.

Application

An organisation decides to use a maturity model and the first step is to choose the right one, that fits the organisation in different parameters such as industry, strategic goals etc. Though, there is not yet a knowledge based guideline for choosing the right model. Often, the execution of the assessment is done be external consultants, though, dependent on the extent of the assessment, it is possible for the organisation to perform it themselves. The assessment simply consists of questions regarding the organisation’s knowledge around the topic, project management. As mentioned earlier, the structure of the models varies and therefore the exact process of assessment also does so. The questions can simply be asked and answered electronic or on paper…

Reactive vs. proactive

Here I want to, write something about when the model should be used.

Workload vs. results

"Here I want to write, how an organisation can benefit from the use of maturity models. The question is, if it is too generic to actually get a clear and sure roadmap to improvements."

Limitations

The idea and concept of this tool gives a lot of opportunities for organisation to improve in maturity in terms of project management as well as other business processes. For now, the models are still very generic, however, there is not a model, which fits every organisation, and not all models fit one organisation. There is a lot of things that could be customized for a given organisation, as for instance industry. Despite the claim of the models being generic, there are still some limitations. These can be divided into practical and theoretical ones. One of the practical ones is that there is a big gap in between the levels of maturity. This makes it very difficult to use the model to measure minor improvements. Also, some sees the model as a fine way of identifying problems, but not given the solutions to the problems. More limitations are to be described…

All in all, there are still some limitations to this tool, but with the support of other tools, like for instance RBV (will be described), combined with a customisation for the specific organisation, this type of model could be a step in changing culture…