Project management maturity: a critical analysis of existing and emergent factors

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of a doctoral thesis examining the limitations of project management maturity and associated models. It examines the management of undefined projects where the definition, repeatability and predictability of processes cannot be reasonably expected. The challenge to project management maturity theorists is to recognize the possibility of project management maturity in an environment characterized by undefined project elements and the requirement for greater flexibility in their management. Design/methodology/approach -This inquiry was supported by a multimethod (MXM) research design with two stages: a content/textual analysis of two different collections of maturity models, and an exploratory case study of two university sites. The analysis (supported by grounded theory techniques) contributed to the development of a 4-node conceptual framework that was used as the primary data collection instrument at two Canadian university sites. Findings -Results indicate that multiple non-process factors can contribute to a mature project management capability. These can include context-specific values, specialized bodies of knowledge (instructional design), customer involvement, third-party influence, and tacit "human factors" such as trust and creativity. The demands of this inquiry also demonstrated the need for a new data collection sequence in multimethod research design theory. Practical implications -Practitioners are encouraged to consider customer involvement, organizational dynamics and adaptable variables such as leadership (among other non-process factors) in their assessment of the maturity of their project management capability, and designers of future models could explore a multi-dimensional approach that includes context-specific factors to assessing and defining project management maturity. Originality/value -This research expands the conceptual view and practical assessment of project management maturity; offers new analysis of the current generation of project management maturity models; documents e-Learning project management; and defines a new data collection sequencing model.

To Mature or not to Mature: The Information Systems Conundrum

“…Organisational maturity itself also depends on processes and the maturity of these processes. The logical connection was made between PMM and the capability of project management for the organisation [8]. Well-defined, repeatable and predictable project management processes contribute to the maturity of project management capability [7].…”

“…There is general consensus that PMM originated from the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model [3] [7] [8]. From these beginnings in software development process maturity, various PMM models used to measure project maturity were developed by various organisations and researchers.…”

“…Research was also done to benchmark PMM across various industries and sectors [6] [7]. Postgraduate students at universities across the globe also spend time analysing and researching PMM [8]. Despite all this international research, research in PMM seems to be neglected in the South African context.…”

Maturity Models for Systems Thinking

“…The means by which maturity is demonstrated is competence, a concept of increasing interest since a seminal publication in the educational testing literature in the 1970s [43]. Since then, it has become a construct of increasing interest in theories of organizational behaviour, popularized by Boyatzis [44] and other 2 Despite connotations that immaturity involves undesirable deficits (e.g., [7]), it is worth noting that psychologists have proposed that the stage of immaturity is an important time of experimentation [41,42] that is valuable to the development of individuals (and the evolution of a field's theoretical understanding of a developmental phenomenon [41]). scholars.…”

A Management Maturity Model (MMM) for project-based organisational performance assessment

“…Intangible assets include context-specific outcomes such as customer involvement and implicit human factors including creativity, integrity and trust (Pasian et al, 2012;Backlund et al, 2014). Another problem with many models is the complexity of their frameworks, which may prevent potential users to implement them on the basis of time and cost commitment (Crawford, 2011).…”