Longitudinal Analysis of Project Management Maturity

Abstract

This paper examines and identifies core dimensions of assessment frameworks, including five core requirements for conducting assessments, two key processes of assessing organizations (audit and self-assessment), and two dimensions of improving performance (delivering data and applying data). It discusses the evolution of using maturity models to assess organizational capabilities and the development of maturity models to assess project management competencies. It then outlines a five-level project management maturity model that the authors used to assess the way 550 international organizations practice project management. The paper lists the challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of using this model; it identifies the practices synonymous with improvements in demonstrated maturity. It also compares the results ofdata collected since this benchmarking study's inception, results that show underlying project management trends, such as changes in organizational capabilities and performance. It reviews the impact of these trends on the studied organizations and the way they manage their projects. It concludes by detailing four key—and unexpected—results.

Exploring Project-Related Factors That Influence Leadership Styles and Their Effect on Project Performance: A Conceptual Framework

“…Although certain studies, including research done by Mullaly [38], [40] as discussed in the previous paragraph, failed to prove that high maturity in project management correlates with better results [9]. Dooley et al [41] disagreed, finding that higher levels of maturity were associated with projects that met organisational goals such as cost goalsi.e., projects that perform well.…”

“…Skulmosky [39] suggests, but does not demonstrate, that there is a link between project management maturity and competency. Recent longitudinal studies of organisational maturity have also been unable to prove a clear link between project management maturity and performance [38], [40]. Mullaly [38] further suggests that project management maturity models need to change their focus from just process maturity to a broader cognisance of organisational maturity.…”

“…Mullaly [38] further suggests that project management maturity models need to change their focus from just process maturity to a broader cognisance of organisational maturity. Project management maturity models need to be more flexible in their structure, more adjustable in their approach, and more receptive in their applications in order for them to be appropriately relevant and meaningfully useful [38], [40].…”

Enhancing Organizational Project Management Maturity: a framework based on the value focused thinking model

“…A stream of research claims that they lack foundations (Cooke-Davies, 2007;Jugdev & Thomas, 2002;Mullaly, 2006), there is a lack of agreement among researchers on what comprises the project management maturity construct Pasian et al, 2012) and a lack of evidence of the relationship of maturity and perceived outcomes (Ahlemann et al, 2009;Besner & Hobbs, 2008a;Killen & Hunt 2013;Mullaly, 2014).…”

Risk, innovation & change: Design propositions for implementing risk management in organizations

“…While embracing risk management, the implementation struggle seems to remain (Oversight Systems, 2006). 15 A longitudinal project management analysis over the years 1998-2003, which was initiated by the Project Management Institute (PMI), showed that organizations consistently fail to apply risk management across projects (Mullaly, 2006). Researchers and practitioners, such as Hillson (2002), Hillson and Murray-Webster (2007), and Olsson (2006) confi rm these 12 On November 1, 2007, leading organizations in the Dutch construction industry signed an agreement on the rigorous application of risk management within Dutch construction projects.…”