Project Management Maturity Models

Abstract

In being able to make improvements in an organisation, it is key to know both strengths and weaknesses. This also applies to project management which is seen as an extremely important factor in achieving 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 in the market. Project Management Maturity Models (PMMM’s) is a tool for exactly that. The model helps the organisation learn about itself and makes it aware of current strengths and weaknesses. The result is an assessment of which level of maturity the project management in an organisation is currently at. In extend to that, the model provides the basis for a plan to achieve continuous improvements and higher levels of maturity. The tool is often used reactive as a result of run to failure strategy in project management. 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;

• 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
• Reflections

Big Idea

The basic idea behind PMMM’s is for an organisation to assess their current level of maturity of the project management performance. Today, project management is an important factor in being able to succeed and well performed project management is accounted as a competitive advantage on the market. Typically, the PMMMs 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 project management execution in the given organisation with standards (e.g. PMBOK Guide). The result of the assessment is then used to set a roadmap for the organisation to reach higher levels of maturity in its 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

The above is a generic description of the idea behind the PMMMs. Firstly, the models did not just appear 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 PMMMs exist. The models 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 model 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 newest type of 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 levels 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. This type of PMMM is more nuanced than the first two. Though, it also has a higher demand in time and resources. Whereas some types of models are applicable by the organisation itself, the organisational models might need assistance of consultancy company.

Figure 1. Result of assessment illustrated in a radar chart

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.

The LKAB Case Study

Backlund et al [F. Backlund et al, 2014] presents a case study in application of PMMM’s. One of the companies in the study is the Swedish mining company, LKAB, primarily working in mining, refining and logistics. The company is 100 percent state owned, has a net turnover of approximately 31 billion SEK and also operates in Norway [F. Backlund et al, 2014]. The company consists of approximately 4200 employees of which around 100 are employed in the project department, carries out hundreds of project every single year with the assistance of- and corporation with experts from other departments of the company. In 2012 LKAB initiated a maturity assessment of project management within the organisation [F. Backlund et al, 2014]. The assessment was executed by a consultancy company, using a model inspired by the P3M3, which is also described in the Big Idea section in this article. The assessment was based on seven PM processes; Management Control, Benefits Management, Financial Management, Stakeholder Engagement, Risk Management, Organisational Governance and Resource Management [F. Backlund et al, 2014]. XXX In practice, the assessment was executed by an electronic app. 20 minutes’ survey, which was send to the participants by email. The confidential survey was a questionnaire questions for each PM process including one open question for each of the seven processes. 73 % of the responders answers the questions within the two weeks that was given as a time limit [F. Backlund et al, 2014]. Open questions XXX. The results were presented in the noget med afdelinger. The results ..

Limitations

The idea and concept of this tool gives a lot of opportunities for organisation to improve level of 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. A lot of elements could be customized for a given organisation, as for instance industry. An example is the XXX company, which operates within construction in Sweden.

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.

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…

The application of the maturity model in the XXX case study, was also evaluated by participants afterwards. Some respondents expressed their frustration of the use of the model. They criticized the following use of the assessment, as they pointed out that the results were primarily presented to the employees without any further plan to improve and solve the assessed problems. Also, there was dissatisfaction in terms the difference in engagement in presentation of results amongst the organisation. [F. Backlund et al, 2014] Leaders of the company, though explained, that such plans and solutions were to be executed, but where simply not finished at the time of the evaluation of the PMMM. Moreover, the evaluation of the experiences of the responders’ also showed very little enthusiasm and engagement in answering the survey.

Of the organisations within the studies of Backlund et al [F. Backlund et al, 2014], none of them where using maturity models in PM at the time of the studies. One argument was that the application of the model has a very high demand on time and resources. It might not be the execution of the survey as it is simply done electronic, but the preparation and the following result presentation. That maybe makes the models of most relevance for larger PM based organisations.