How to Increase the Value of the Project Management Maturity Model as a Business-Oriented Framework

1. Introduction

As projects have been recognized as critical to the success of any organization, more and more organizations have embraced Project Management as an improvement tool as well as a key strategy for remaining competitive in today's highly competitive business environment [1].

Many researchers and practitioners have simultaneously begun to study the matter in a wide variety of directions in order to enhance methods and practices and to improve effectiveness in achieving the success of an organization's projects.

Despite all the efforts, in 2013 the Project Management Institute presented its periodical Pulse of the Profession^TM research [2] which, even according to other studies [3], showed that less than two-thirds of projects meet their goals and business intent (success rates have been falling since 2008, from 72 percent in 2008 to 62 percent in 2012) and about 17 percent fail outright.

According to the PMI [2], in addition, the actual risk for organizations is estimated to amount to losses of an average of US$135 million dollars for every US$1 billion invested in a project.

Data and studies show clearly that much work remains to be done in the area of PM and that we are now only at the first stage: the imperative to improve project management for competitive advantage is clear, but barriers to an effective implementation still exist.

The approach chosen by the community to deal with the matter is to extend the focus of project management from studying a single project to studying the way the organization is using projects to achieve its goals [4]. PM is no longer a program within the company. It becomes a strategic part of the long-term business plan. The present view of PM recognizes - as a benefit - that it is now seen as a strategic initiative designed to enhance shareholder value.

Many authors [5, 6] suggest that Project Management Maturity Models (PMMMs) could be an answer or a support to link projects with strategy and organization. Others [5] show that PMMMs are typically used reactively and not proactively and that they do not have sufficiently rigorous protocols in the evaluation of project management maturity. Moreover there is too little empirical evidence to match project maturity and project performance.

The general aim of this study is to investigate the best way to fill the gap between PM and effective success in an organization's projects. It is a position paper in which the underlying assumption is that a PMMM represents a solid answer to an organization's needs and the research question is about the direction PMMMs should evolve to perform better in supporting an organization to achieve its business goals. The authors present arguments and evidence from the academic as well as the industrial perspective to back up propositions about the best way to increase the value of PMMMs as a business-oriented framework.

The paper is structured as follows: section 2 is devoted to comparing PMMMs and to analysing core features of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) as best performer. In section 3, our propositions about OPM3 are presented and discussed. Section 4 summarizes main findings and introduces the future research work. Finally, section 5 provides some final remarks.

2. The Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM)

The Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) is a formal tool used to assess, measure and compare an organization's own practices against best practices or those employed by competitors, with the intention to map out a structured path to improvement [3].

In order to adopt the project-based way of conducting business, organizations require the necessary infrastructure, which includes processes (methods and techniques), governance structures, competences of people and tools. Frequently, a lack of foresight creates an environment where the PM systems and infrastructure are not in place to support the needs of the practicing PM community. This is often where the value of a maturity assessment comes into play [7].

More generally, the use of a PMMM provides three main advantages:

Judgev and Thomas [9], however, note that the benefits of PMMMs should not be overestimated because they provide only temporary competitive advantage to the firms using them.

In any case, since the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) was first created in 1989, many other maturity models have been developed. We can now enumerate more than twenty PMMMs, which are substantially different from each other in terms of structure and features.

We have, therefore, explored some studies in order to compare different models. Grant [3] identified the following criteria for the evaluation: (i) degree of alignment with the methodology, (ii) scope, (iii) degree of publication, (iv) degree of independence from industry, (v) transparency of calculation, (vi) independence of the tools used, (vii) number of years of existence and (viii) ease of use. In a more concise way, the evaluation of maturity models for PMMMs could be developed along three dimensions [12]: (i) structure, (ii) applicability and (iii) usage.

Combining both frameworks, we have selected the following shortlist of maturity models:

However, we have limited the final choice to the only models - OPM3 and P3M3 - that better fit the basic assumption for our research.

In our opinion, it is completely wrong to try to achieve success by working only from a point of view of projects. Portfolio management is central to many organizations' strategic processes and requires consideration of multiple factors and the ability to envision alternative future consequences to support strategic project portfolio decision-making. However, programs and projects are necessary to perform the detailed operational execution. Only through the creation of a positive pattern from project to portfolio management is it possible to link strategy and project and improve the general performance.

Indeed, many authors [13] have supported the same assumption, stating repeatedly that simultaneous formalization of single projects, as well as of entrepreneur portfolio projects, is the only way to increases the positive effect on performance and that mature organizations realizing one domain cannot exist without the others.

Finally, we have embraced the theory of Khoshgoftar and Osman [14], who conclude in their review of maturity models that OPM3 is the better maturity model for improving organizational performance. This theory, combined with the following remarks about OPM3, has convinced us that OPM3 would be the most appropriate maturity model regarding the aim of our paper:

3. Propositions about OPM3

In order to improve the value of OPM3 as a business-oriented framework, the points of view of users, managers and consultants from the industrial world should be evaluated too. In this direction, Special Interest Groups (SIG) [17] and Websites [18] on the topic have contributed a great deal, enabling authors to feel the pulse of OPM3 users and practitioners.

From a recent survey among OPM3 practitioners [19], more specific motivations for using OPM3 have emerged. Of particular interest to our research are the motivations to:

All of these emphasize the need for linking a maturity assessment and improvement with the company's specific business goals and financial objectives. Indeed, the expected result from OPM3 is concrete support to improve “competitive advantage” in an “effective, efficient and productive” way.

Based on the results of this investigation from the academic to the industrial world, we have formulated our propositions to improve the value of OPM3 as a business-oriented framework.

Using a contingency approach means recognizing that one size of standardization factors does not fit all organizations. Organizational Project Management standardization factors should be customized to fit the strategic purpose of the company and thus each organization may have its own set, or “size,” of best practices (BP) on the OPM3 approach. Many authors [20] agree on the importance of a contingency approach and they insist [21] that it is wrong to assume that BPs will automatically enhance project success.

Indeed, OPM3 does not impede a contingency approach at all. In fact, it is not prescriptive, but it provides guidelines regarding the kinds of things an organization may do in order to achieve excellence in Organizational Project Management. Otherwise, it does not mean with certainty that OPM3 fully supports a contingency approach. In our opinion, to be effective, a contingency approach should be developed through a specific methodology or following definite criteria (for an example, see [22]). Instead, in OPM3 room is also left for subjective evaluations and generic tools in decision-making processes used to choose the potential improvements and select the BPs. Neither a common reference nor specific methodologies to develop an organization's contingency approach exist in OPM3. Results are often, therefore, disappointing.

Milosevic and Patanakul [25], however, proved that a “compass” occurs. Based on their exploratory research, they discovered that there is a specific point - which they referred to as the inflection point – beyond which further increasing standardization may actually stifle project success. Where this inflection point exactly appears to be company-specific, meaning that it varies from company to company, but many authors [23, 24] agree that various characteristics, such as the size, composition or innovativeness of projects in the portfolio [25], might influence the effectiveness of maturity. Kiskela [20] and Milosevic [21] have linked the optimal degree of maturity to factors such as complexity, uncertainty and risk. In short, there are many factors influencing a contingency approach. The literature as well as the industrial cases now offer the chance to formalize them into a framework to drive organizations in developing their own effective contingency approach. Including and structuring all this knowledge should enhance the OPM3's value for organizations, saving them from a badly tailored approach.

Proposition 2 happens strictly sequentially because it restates the opportunity to enlarge investigation of other factors in OPM3 assessment.

There are many researches about the opportunity to include other factors in a really effective assessment. Many authors [27, 28] have demonstrated that there is variability between industries: the more established users of project management such as the engineering-based industries demonstrate a higher level of maturity.

Eisenhardt and Tabrizi [29] have observed that the effect of maturity on project performance may be contingent on certain environmental factors (industry, competition, political interference, etc.). Other authors [24] are inclined to consider structural factors (technological capacity, organizational culture, management systems, financial management and employee morale) and contextual factors (social, political and financial). Finally Mullaly [26] identifies external factors (economic, regulatory and market driven) as potential influences on the maturity level.

All this evidence is consistent with the main idea that assessing the maturity level only through OPM3 assessment is not adequate; organizations should look for a more structured scorecard. Maturity level provided by OPM3 is a solid measure because it allows a standard measurement, monitoring and comparing. Otherwise, the meaning is strongly influenced by organizations' business and strategy.

Our opinion is that more work is needed to see if we can measure more thoroughly the maturity levels and this is possible only through an enlargement of the assessment, even taking in other business-oriented parameters.

Findings from OPM3 assessment are often disappointing for users and in our opinion the main reason is the method of scoring.

Few researches are focused on the measurement of maturity level: [30] adopts the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to evaluate the NPD PM maturity. [31] presents an approach to apply OPM3 to effectively assess organizational project management capability, based on a neural network assessment model. Up to now results from the literature have not been able to remove the weakness of OPM3 scoring method.

There are two different methods of scoring that can be used to represent the maturity state of a company within the OPM3 literature [32]. The first one is based on the percentage of Best Practices, Capabilities and Capability Outcomes which have been fully achieved, relative to the number that was assessed. An alternative scoring provides a more quantitative assessment of maturity by measuring the extent to which Capabilities are present in the organization. Results from the first scoring represent the maturity level, that is, the degree to which the OPM3 methodology is implemented, which is comparable across all organizations. It is very general and at times it may be seen as too strict. The second scoring, based on Capabilities, gives a more detailed picture of the ability of an organization to “do right things well” [33], but it depends on the organization's own strategy and environment. Any two organizations could even have the same level of maturity against completely different capabilities, because the methodology allows them to self-determine goals for process capability. In our opinion, this makes the scoring too subjective, making a comparison among organizations difficult and not completely meaningful. In the same way, what feedback could be given for two similar organizations with different capabilities and different competitive advantage? It comes from capabilities or from the specific goals? OPM3 definitely links value decision making with value delivery and fulfilment, but the scoring does not allow for highlighting that connection in a useful way. Removing this weakness should greatly increase the value for organizations.

4. Discussion and future research work

All our propositions aim at the target from different directions: the point at issue is that OPM3 is too focused on best practices and capabilities. It is an excellent standard, but it almost appears to consider an organization as just the sum of BPs and capabilities. Ann organization is really a more complex system and other factors and their influence should not be ignored.

On the basis of our propositions we intend to develop future research work. The specific aim is to study all the factors (environmental, internal, external, etc.) influencing the organizational Project Management maturity level.

The conceptual research model investigates three areas of decision-making, capabilities and performance evaluation, and it aims at highlighting how environmental, cultural, organizational as well as other factors are able to activate synapsis among any areas.

The research work is expected to increase the value of PMMM in a double way:

5. Research methodology

The research methodology is based on observation of repeated OPM3 analysis and deep study of the model. It appears quite obvious from analysing the model that the same results can be achieved with completely different starting points.

In order to achieve our specific goal, we intend to use a multi-method approach:

The practical implications of our research should be to increase the value of OPM3 as a business-oriented methodology. Another expected result is to enable and improve the benchmark among organizations.

6. Conclusions

Our aim has been to investigate OPM3 in order to evolve it as a business-oriented model that meets organizations' demands.

The main findings of our position paper are:

The expected results from research based on this paper are a thorough knowledge of factors influencing organizational PM maturity in order to develop an effective contingency approach to OPM3 and to link PM maturity and business performance.

The limitation could be that we do not release the model from a very strong influence of the assessor. That is key to the result. The quality of the assessor determines the quality of the outcome