This chapter aims to demonstrate the value of project management, and to relate it to the concepts of maturity and fit, based on our research into understanding the value of project management (Thomas and Mullaly, 2008). Value is both tangible and intangible in nature; tangible value can be realized by even the most immature project organizations, while intangible value is much more strongly correlated with increasing levels of maturity. In addition, the study provided initial correlations of the context and implementation factors of project management that influence the various types of value that were actually observed.
While we did not set out to assess the maturity of project management implementations, this did prove to be a useful construct in understanding the overall correlation of capability with value, particularly as they relate to the consistency and formality of implemented practices. What is clearly demonstrated is that maturity alone does not incorporate an appreciation of the context within which practices are implemented, and therefore any recommendations derived from a maturity model in its current state must be suspect. While the application of maturity was useful in understanding the congruence of implementations with macro-level realization of value, it was only through the application of contingency approaches to understanding fit that appropriate judgments of implementation and context could be made to realize a specific value.
Moreover, the study supports other research into contingency theories of fit that suggest a systems approach to understand contingency is most appropriate in understanding micro-level implementation and context options. The regressions specifically suggest those capabilities that will positively or negatively contribute to different types of value, and advances exploratory theories that suggest a model of what future maturity models could look like.
Finally, it is important to note that fit and maturity as is currently understood were both able to provide useful insights, especially when both approaches were adopted.
This suggests that it is not a question of choosing one approach over the other, as much as it is understanding the contributions that each makes to an overall understanding of organizational capabilities. By adopting the full spectrum of approaches associated with contingency theory, it is possible to gain a more comprehensive and meaningful means of enhancing organizational effectiveness. Incorporating the lessons of contingency theory into future approaches of organizational assessment may finally yield models that truly support the improvements in performance that the use of assessment and evaluation instruments has long promised.
69 T h e Va l u e o f P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t
references and further reading
Andersen, E.S. and Vaagaasar, A-L., 2009, Project management improvement efforts—creating project management value by uniqueness or mainstream thinking? Project Management Journal, 40(1), 19–27.
Bryde, D.J., 2003, Modeling project management performance, The International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 20(2/3), 228–44.
Cicmil, S., Ðorevi, Z. and Zivanovic, S., 2009, Understanding the adoption of project management in Serbian organizations: Insights from an exploratory study, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 88–98.
Cooke-Davies, T., 2002, The “real” success factors on projects, International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185–90.
Cooke-Davies, T., Crawford, L.H. and Lechler, T.G., 2009, Project management systems: Moving project management from an operational to a strategic discipline, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 110–23.
Crawford, L.H. and Helm, J., 2009, Government and governance: The value of project management in the public sector, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 73–87.
Dai, C.X. and Wells, W.G., 2004, An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance, International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 523–32.
Deming, W.E., 1993, The New Economics: For Industry, Government and Education, Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Donaldson, L., 2001, The Contingency Theory of Organizations, New York: Sage Publications.
Eskerod, P. and Riis, E., 2009, Project management models as value creators, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 4–18
Humphreys, W., 1992, Introduction to Software Process Improvement, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Hurt, M. and Thomas, J., 2009, Building value through sustainable project management offices, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 55–72.
Ibbs, C.W. and Kwak, Y.H., 1997, The Benefits of Project Management: Financial and Organizational Rewards to Corporations, Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute.
Ibbs, C.W. and Kwak, Y.H., 2000, Assessing project management maturity, Project Management Journal, 31(1), 32–43.
Ibbs, C.W. and Reginato, J.M., 2002, Quantifying the Value of Project Management, Newtown Square, PA., Project Management Institute.
Ibbs, C.W. Reginato, J.M. and Kwak, Y.H., 2004, Developing project management capability—
benchmarking, maturity, modeling, gap analyses, ROI studies, in Morris, P.W.G., and Pinto, J.K.
(eds), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects, Hoboken: Wiley, 1214–33.
Jugdev, K. and Müller, R., 2005, A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success, Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–32.
Jugdev, K. and Thomas, J., 2002, Project management maturity models: The silver bullets of competitive advantage? Project Management Journal, 33(4), 4–14.
Kerzner, H., 2005, Using the Project Management Maturity Model: Strategic Planning for Project Management, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kraut, A.I., 1996, Organizational Surveys, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kwak, Y.H. and Ibbs, C.W., 2000, Calculating project management’s return on investment, Project Management Journal, 31(2), 38–47.
Lechler, T.G. and Cohen, M., 2009, Exploring the role of steering committees in realizing value from project management, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 42–54.
Lepak, D.P., Smith K.G. and Taylor, M.S., 2007, Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective, Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180–94.
Li, Z., Yanfei, X. and Chaosheng, C., 2009, Understanding the value of project management from a stakeholder’s perspective: Case study of mega-project management, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 99–109.
Mengel, T, Cowan-Sahadath, K. and Follet, F., 2009, The value of project management to organizations in Canada and Germany, or do values add value? Five case studies, Project Management Journal, 40(1), 28–41.
Mullaly, M., 2006, Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity, Project Management Journal, 37(3), 62–73.
Mullaly, M., and Thomas, J. (2009). Exploring the dynamics of value and fit: Insights from project management. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 124–35.
Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. and Weber, C., 1993, Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18.
Pennypacker, J. and Grant, K., 2003, Project management maturity: An industry benchmark, Project Management Journal, 34(1): 4–11.
Phillips, J.J., 1998, Measuring the return on investment in organization development, Organization Development Journal, 16(4), 29–41.
Project Management Institute, 2003, Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3):
Knowledge Foundation, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Thomas, J., Delisle, C., Jugdev, K. and Buckle, P., 2002, Selling Project Management to Senior Executives, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Thomas, J. and Mullaly, M., 2008, Researching the Value of Project Management. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
chapter
5 Maturity Models in Project Management
GinGer Levin and J. Leroy Ward
As executives in organizations from every industry sector continue to recognize the importance of programs and projects to overall success, the emphasis on continuous improvement in portfolio, program and project management processes increases. A portfolio process that has been in place and followed or a program or project management process that an Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) may have developed and implemented, even only a year ago, may require revisions and updates. Strategic changes may be responsible. Such activities as mergers, acquisitions or downsizing may cause a process to go out of date or be overcome by events. As such, they may no longer meet the needs of the practitioners. Assessing the overall maturity in terms of portfolio, program and project management is therefore one way to determine whether improvements are required, and if so, which improvements are the ones of the highest priority to implement.
This chapter describes the importance of maturity models, presents a description of some of the leading models available, explains the process of conducting a maturity assessment and describes why process improvement is essential for project-based organizations.