Uruguay

Maturity is defined as ‘full development’ (Merriam-Webster, 456). The Project Management Institute, PMI (Project Management Institute, 2008), notes it is ‘the state of optimal performance within project, program, and portfolio management’ (184).

Kerzner (2009) explains that some consider maturity and project management excellence to be the same, but suggests there is a difference: ‘maturity … is the implementation of a standard methodology and accompanying processes such that there exists a high likelihood of repeated successes’ (58). Excellence on the other hand is noted not only by successful projects that continuously are executed and managed but where ‘success is measured by what is in the best interest of both the company and the project (that is the customer)’ (58). PMI (2003) defines a maturity model as ‘a conceptual framework, with consistent parts that defines maturity in the area of interest. … it also may describe a process whereby an organization can develop or achieve something desirable. … this process can result in a more highly evolved organizational state; in other words, a more

mature organization’ (5) Capability Maturity Models (CMM) ‘attempt to define industry practices that correlate with increasing levels of process maturity’. The resulting CMMs seek to provide (Nutt et al, 2003, 11)

a) an industry standard or ‘framework’ by which relative maturity can be assessed;

b) a clear path to evolve processes to achieve increasing mature states;

c) specific guidance on best practices and their applicability and implementation.

According to the Project Management Institute (2008), Organizational Project Management, OPM (which also includes programs and portfolios, Chapters 27 and 28) is

‘the systematic management of projects, programs, and portfolios in alignment with the organization’s strategic business goals’ (9). The emphasis is to ensure that the programs and projects under way are reflective of the organization’s overall strategic goals and objectives and also that the portfolio management process continues to serve these goals and objectives and remains relevant as shown in Figure 5.1.

evoLution of Maturity ModeLs

Maturity models are not a new concept. Crosby (1979) developed a Quality Management Maturity Grid in which he described five stages of maturity:

1. Uncertainty: in which the quality problems are due to the quality department in the organization;

2. Awakening: in which people are beginning to recognize those in quality management might be able to fix problems in a correct way;

3. Enlightenment: in which managers and those in the quality department work together to fix problems;

4. Wisdom: in which quality management is integrated into the work of the organization;

5. Certainty: in which the organization lacks any quality problems as it has an understanding as to what is necessary.

Figure 5.1 Organizational project management maturity strategy

portfolio

programs projects

vision The alignment and systematic management of projects, programs and portfolios to achieve strategic organizational goals

The Business of OPM – connecting value decision making with value delivery and fulfillment

73 M a t u r i t y M o d e l s i n P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t

He recommended the use of this grid to assess the organization’s current state and its desired or ‘to-be’ state, emphasizing the purpose is to ensure the organization is and continues to make progress. To measure progress in each of the five stages, he included categories:

• Management understanding and attitude;

• Quality organization status;

• Problem handling;

• The cost of quality as a percentage of sales;

• Quality improvement actions;

• A summary of the organization’s quality posture.

Crosby’s work, with these measurement criteria, therefore served as a way to assess an organization’s maturity.

In 1984, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) established a federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC), the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. Subsequently, DoD continued to fund the SEI and in 2010, extended its contract through June 2015, an agreement valued at US$584 million. Its Director and Chief Executive Officer stated that ‘Our purpose is to advance the state of the art in software engineering and transition these advancements to the community so that organizations may develop and acquire software that is more reliable, more secure and more dependable’ (Carnegie Mellon University, 2010).

Building on the work of Juran, Deming and Crosby, Humphrey (1989) published the beginnings of the first CMM. Humphrey’s approach was somewhat different based on his insights in the software industry that an organization’s processes mature in stages on the basis of solving problems in a certain order. He set forth five stages to show the evolution of software development practices rather than measuring each process independently. It led to the first CMM from the SEI, released in 1991. This Software CMM, according to the SEI, is often called ‘The CMM’ as it was the first capability maturity model and was adopted by organizations worldwide. It was intended for use by government contractors in evaluating their maturity to complete software projects. It is no longer supported since the publication of the Capability Maturity Model for Integration (CMMI) discussed later in this chapter. It consists of five levels of maturity with Key Process Areas, which describe goals, commitment to perform, ability to perform, activities to perform, measurement and validation.

This model subsequently led to interest by many in the project management profession in maturity models for all types of projects and to the publication of project management maturity models. It also led to the development of maturity models in other areas such as business development, research and development, telecommunications, knowledge management, product development and leadership to list a few.

exaMPLes of soMe Maturity ModeLs

A number of maturity models are available for portfolio, program and project management. This section presents a brief overview of some of the leading models and their characteristics.

esi international’s Maturity Models

On the basis of a paper and presentation by Fincher and Levin (1997), ESI International began the development of the Project Framework Maturity Model. These five levels and their definitions also were similar to those of the CMM-SW:

1. Initial: Ad hoc, no formal project management process;

2. Repeatable: Implementing a project management methodology;

3. Defined: Project management practices used and adapted;

4. Managed: Project management practices measured and controlled;

5. Optimizing: Focusing on process improvement.

Fincher and Levin proposed goals for Levels 2 to 5 based on each of PMI’s knowledge areas in the PMBOK Guide (Project Management Institute, 2008, first edition 1996), with Level 5 having seven goals.

ProjectFRAMEWORK™ (Levin et al, 1999) expanded on this work to develop a model which provides guidance to organizations to improve the way they manage projects. It focuses on continuous improvement in managing and developing project management at the organizational level. ProjectFRAMEWORK™ consists of five levels, similar to those originally proposed by Fincher and Levin, but with Level 3 titled Integrated, and Level 4 titled Comprehensive. Following the work of the SEI in the CMM-SW (Software) and in discussions with the SEI, ProjectFRAMEWORK™ describes for Levels 2–5 objectives, commitment to perform, ability to perform, activities performed, evaluation and verification, with examples in each area based on the PMBOK knowledge areas.

The model was once available on ESI’s web site for downloading at no cost by interested organizations. It was accompanied by a detailed assessment methodology, which included a questionnaire to be sent to project professionals at a variety of levels, questions to ask during interviews held, and items for consideration in review of organizational documents, such as policies, procedures and processes in project management, along with different items for review of documents prepared on actual projects. ESI established a training program in use of the model and certified professionals at the completion of this program. ProjectFRAMEWORK™ was updated after the second, third and fourth editions of the PMBOK Guide were issued. Levin et al (2010) prepared comparable models and assessment methodologies for program and portfolio management based on the second editions of the PMI standards in these areas.

Kerzner – iiL Project Management Maturity Model (also known as KPM³)

In 2001, the Kerzner/IIL Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) was issued. Also a staged approach with five levels (Figure 5.2), it emphasizes different areas.

At Level 1, rather than being characterized as ad hoc or initial, instead is noted as basic knowledge. At this level, a series of multiple choice questions assess a project professional’s understanding of the common terms used in project management. Level 2, or Common Processes, recognizes successes on one project are ones which can be repeated by others in the organization, and project management methodologies can be applied to other

75 M a t u r i t y M o d e l s i n P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t

functions in the organization, such as accounting or business development. At Level 3, or Singular Methodology, process control is facilitated as there is a single methodology for project management used in the organization. Level 4 is the Benchmarking level in which organizations use benchmarking with other companies to maintain a competitive advantage, noting organizations must select carefully companies with whom to engage in the benchmarking process, while Level 5 emphasizes Continuous Improvement.

Another feature in this model is its emphasis on risk management, with Level 3, noted as the level of highest risk for an organization based on the difficulty and time consuming nature of establishing and implementing a common methodology. A later edition of this model in 2005, included more attention to the Project Management Office (PMO), and the model also was updated in 2011 (Kerzner, 2009). This model was the first to focus on the importance of benchmarking, and as part of the IIL assessment approach, organizations could elect to anonymously benchmark with other organizations using this model for an assessment.

the software engineering institute’s Capability Maturity Model for integration (CMMi)

In 2000, the SEI released the CMMI, later updated in 2002, 2006 and 2009 (referred to as CMMI-Development [DEV]), with a focus on integrating software and systems engineering. It was followed in 2007, by a CMMI-Acquisition [ACQ] model, emphasizing the acquisition process, and in 2009, by the CMMI-Services [SVC] focusing on service organizations since the development of quality service processes to lead to improvements Figure 5.2 Kerzner’s five levels of maturity

Source: Adapted with the kind permission of Harold Kerzner

in performance, customer satisfaction and overall profitability (Phillips and Shrum, 2010).

The CMMI also emphasized either use of a continuous or staged approach (Figure 5.3).

The staged approach uses maturity levels to show the state of the organization’s processes as a whole, while the continuous approach uses capability levels to characterize the state of the organization’s readiness in an individual process area.

This model is applicable to project management as its Levels 2 and 3 focus on it extensively. Level 2, for example, emphasizes requirements management, project planning, project management and control, supplier agreement management and configuration management, with Level 3 including a focus on requirements development, integrated project management and risk management, among other areas.

Project Management institute organizational Project Management Maturity Model (oPM3)

In 1998 PMI initiated a global project to develop OPM3 as a standard for organizational project management. This standard was published in 2003, and consists of three areas:

1. Knowledge: the contents of the Standard;

2. Assessment: a method for comparison against the Standard;

3. Improvement: an approach to establish a process for possible improvements based on the Standard.

PMI developed OPM3 to help strengthen the relationship between strategic planning and the execution of programs and projects so the results are ones that are ‘predictable, reliable, and consistent, and correlate with organizational success’ (2003, xi). As part of this standard, an approach for a self assessment was included along with directories that contained over 600 best practices, capabilities and outcomes. OPM3 is set up in a manner in

Figure 5.3 cMMI continuous and staged representation

Process areas Process areas

Maturity levels

Specific

goals Generic

goals Specific

goals Generic

goals

Specific

practices Generic

practices

Specific

practices Generic practices Capability levels

Continuous Representation Staged Representation

77 M a t u r i t y M o d e l s i n P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t

which assessments can be conducted on project management, program management and/

or portfolio management according to the following four stages of process improvement:

1. Standardize;

2. Measure;

3. Control;

4. Continuous improvement.

OPM3 does not contain levels of maturity but instead emphasizes best practices that need to be in place for multiple perspectives of maturity.

The Second Edition of the Standard (2008) contains 488 best practices or optimal ways to achieve stated goals or objectives in order to deliver portfolios, programs or projects predictably, consistently and successfully to bring to fruition the organization’s strategic intent. These best practices are based on at least two capabilities, or specific competencies that must exist in the organization. These capabilities each have multiple outcomes and key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with them. The KPIs are used to see if each outcome associated with the capability is in place and can be either quantitative or qualitative. There are also dependencies within the best practices in OPM3, enabling a sequence to follow to achieve best practices that are not in place as noted during an assessment. The best practices are mapped to the knowledge areas in portfolio, program and project management. Business results, including predictability of success, resource use and the balanced scorecard, are other areas that can be assessed using OPM3 (Figure 5.4).

In the second edition (2008), 74 organizational enablers are part of the 488 best practices. These organizational enablers cover areas such as those shown in Figure 5.5.

While the OPM3 Standard contains an abbreviated assessment method, an OPM3 On Line assessment tool is available as well as detailed assessments conducted by individuals certified as OPM3 Professionals who have the ability to conduct assessments using the

Figure 5.4 What is measured in OpM3

proprietary Product Suite methodology, a detailed on line tool to not only determine the best practices in place in an organization, but also to chart an improvement plan or roadmap to help organizations achieve other best practices.

office of Government Commerce Models

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC), now known as the Cabinet Office, has also been active in the development of maturity models in portfolio, program and project management. Beginning as part of a project management maturity model in its PRINCE2 (Projects In Controlled Environments) methodology, in 2006, OGC released its Portfolio, Program, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3 Model). It was then updated in 2008 and 2010, recognizing that more organizations were moving into program and portfolio management. Even with the updates, OGC (2010) has set up each new version so it is comparable with the first model, making it easier for organizations to use the assessment approach. Its emphasis is to identify an organization’s current capabilities, enable the organization to compare its current state to its desired state and determine needed improvements. OGC also has a self-assessment tool available. OGC purposely set up P3M3 without interdependencies between the models in order that independent assessments can be conducted. It also follows a five-level staged approach, building on the CMM-SW structure:

Level 1: awareness of the process;

Level 2: repeatable process;

Level 3: defined process;

Level 4: managed process;

Level 5: optimized process.

The seven perspectives (Management Control, Benefits Management, Financial Management, Stakeholder Engagement, Risk Management, Organizational Governance, Resource Management) are in each of the three models and can be assessed at each level.

Attributes are part of each perspective, with specific and generic attributes described as appropriate. The emphasis is to provide a flexible approach to meet an organization’s Figure 5.5 OpM3 organizational enablers

79 M a t u r i t y M o d e l s i n P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t

specific and unique requirements. Although a self-assessment approach is included, similar to PMI in OPM3 with its Certified OPM3 Professionals, the APM Group accredits consulting organizations to develop maturity questionnaires.