Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658 – 1669
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

A broader approach to organisational project management

maturity assessment
Mihály Görög
Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary
Received 8 January 2016; received in revised form 23 August 2016; accepted 30 August 2016

Abstract

Around the new millennium, organisational project management maturity was a frequently occurring topic both in international conferences
and professional journals. Many of the maturity models were published during this period. The response from professionals was largely positive,
although there was also criticism in the literature. Many organisations, at the same time, have made investments in applying maturity models with
little return in improved success rate achieved on their projects. Currently, this topic also attracts more attention coupled with challenging criticism.
Central to this criticism are the inherent mechanistic approach and the subsequent narrow focus of the maturity models. The primary aim of this
paper is to introduce a broader approach to project management maturity assessment, deduced from project management literature, which might
address the criticism regarding the existing models, while it has the potential for developing more appropriate maturity models.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Broader approach to project management maturity; Conceptual bases of project management maturity; Project management maturity models

1. Introduction to attract an increasing interest again; for example, Iqbal (2013)

provided an overview of the existing maturity models recently,
Nowadays, it is broadly accepted by both academics and while Pasian (2011) and Torres (2014) devoted their PhD thesis
practitioners that projects are the means by which organisations work to project management maturity. At the same time,
implement those beneficial changes which are implied in their International Journal of Managing Projects in Business devoted
strategic objectives. Revealing the strategic role of projects was a special issue to the topic of project management maturity in
pioneered by Cleland (1990) and it was continued by many 2014.
authors (e.g. Andersen and Jessen, 2003; Cooke-Davies et al., The concept of project management maturity of organisations
2009; Grundy, 1998; van den Honert, 1994; Kwak and Anbari, stems back to the concept of process maturity (Cooke-Davies,
2008; Leybourne, 2007; Mc Elroy, 1996) throughout the past 2002a; Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow, 2003). First, the Software
decades. Because of the turbulent operational environment Engineering Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University implemented
in which organisations operate, the strategic role of projects their Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in order to improve
implies that organisations need to manage the implementation software development efforts (c.f. Humphrey, 1992).
of a portfolio of projects which encompass both single-projects Skulmoski (2001) considers organisational project manage-
and project programs (Görög, 2011). Thus project management ment maturity as a certain kind of organisational receptivity to
has become an issue which needs to be considered at managing projects. At the same time, Andersen and Jessen
organisational level (c.f. Aubry et al., 2008). This need led to the (2003) say that organisational project management maturity is
concept of organisational project management maturity at the end an indication or a measurement of an organisation's ability to
of the nineties (c.f. Cooke-Davies, 2004). Many of the maturity deal with projects. Kwak and Ibbs (2002) emphasise that
models were introduced around the turn of the new millennium, organisational project management maturity needs to reflect the
and many project management maturity related papers were actual level of dealing with projects. The outcomes of such a
published during this time. Currently, the topic of maturity seems comparison highlight both the advantageous and disadvantageous

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.011
0263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669 1659

project management related aspects of organisations (Ibbs et al., The aim of this paper is to introduce a broader approach to
2004). assessing project management maturity of organisations drawn
Andersen and Jessen (2003), with reference to the Webster from existing project management literature. In order to achieve
dictionary, state that an organisation can never mature in any this end, revealing the main features of the existing maturity
literal sense. Similarly, Cooke-Davies (2004), with reference to models, and highlighting the views found in literature on these
the Collins dictionary, states that organisational maturity is first models are needed. The author believes that his proposed
of all a potential of an organisation rather than an actual quality approach could lead to higher potential for increasing success
of the organisation. Based on the above considerations, the rate of projects in the organisations.
noun maturity in this paper implies the state of being prepared To achieve the aim of this paper, the author adopts the
(as an organisation) for implementing a portfolio of projects in assumption that based on
a consistent manner, and both efficiently and effectively. Thus,
the level of organisational project management maturity • a broader view on the concept of project success (and the
indicates the actual state of being prepared for implementing a associated success criteria),
portfolio of projects. • the concept of organisational project management (and the
At the time of the introduction of the maturity models, the associated project governance structure).
expectations were very high. Academics and practitioners
seemed to believe that these models would bring better project A broader approach to assessing organisational project
performance in general. Cleland and Ireland (2002) stressed management maturity could be formulated.
the importance of maturity models in achieving more efficient The paper is organised as follows: The following section is a
and effective operation at organisational level. Duffy (2001) literature review on organisational project management maturity
emphasised the strategic importance of using maturity models in models. It provides a general overview of the existing maturity
terms of strategic positioning of organisations. Kerzner (2005) models and highlights the main features of these models, while it
also states that project management maturity is one of the decisive summarises the outcomes of the use of maturity models in
factors of strategic management since it can contribute to using the organisations to assess their maturity level, then the associated
organisational resources more efficiently and effectively. Rad and critical remarks found in the literature are introduced. Following
Levin (2005) pointed out that assessment of project management this section, the underlying concepts of the proposed broader
maturity could provide a mechanism for organisational compe- approach to the project management maturity assessment is
tency health. introduced. This section is followed by revealing the implications
In accordance with this belief, the availability of these of the previously introduced concepts, then the framework of the
models not only provided tools for maturity assessment but proposed maturity models is introduced in brief. A summary and
they somehow almost forced organisations to manage their conclusions section highlights both the theoretical contributions
projects better (Grant and Pennypacker, 2006; Pennypacker and and the practical implications of the proposed broader approach
Grant, 2003). However, Wheatley (2007), then Albrecht and to the organisational project management maturity assessment.
Spang (2014a, 2014b) stressed that there is no one certain Finally, limitations and the likely further research are emphasised
optimum level of maturity which may be appropriate for each at the end of the paper.
organisation. In addition to this, Torres (2014) pointed out that
there is no one right improvement road map applicable for each 2. Literature on organisational project management
organisation operating in different industrial and organisational maturity models
context.
Based on an extensive literature survey, Torres (2014) identifies This literature review has a twofold aim. One of them is to
three primary roles of maturity models in the organisations, highlight the main features of the existing maturity models. The
namely, (a) assessing the current state of maturity, (b) providing other one is to reveal the shortcomings of existing approaches
guidelines to reach higher level maturity, and (c) benchmarking to maturity models found in the literature.
with other organisations. He also collects the potential values Both the advent and the beginning of the new millennium saw
of the maturity models, such as (a) strategic value, i.e., higher a certain proliferation of organisational project management
level maturity is a competitive advantage; (b) benchmarking maturity models. Estimations suggest that the number of these
value, i.e., highlighting the needs for developing the maturity models exceeds 30 (c.f. Cooke-Davies, 2004; Pennypacker
status; and (c) performance value, i.e., higher level maturity leads and Grant, 2003); however, Iqbal (2013) identifies roughly 60
to better performance. different models. Cooke-Davies (2002a) defines three types of
Although there were expectations in terms of better, i.e., the maturity models: (a) those that focus on the project
more successful project management due to the use of project management process (i.e., the implied knowledge areas),
management maturity models (e.g., Cleland and Ireland, 2002; (b) those that focus on the technical process of developing the
Grant and Pennypacker, 2006; Kerzner, 2005; Torres, 2014), project outcome (e.g., software development process), and
these models do not consider directly the implications of project (c) those that focus on organisational maturity in the wider sense.
success criteria in their underlying approach. Since project Brooks and Clark (2009) classify the existing maturity models
success is a multifaceted phenomenon, a broader approach to based on the: (a) delineation of the term maturity, (b) the
project management maturity assessment is needed. knowledge area considered in the models, and (c) the scope of the
1660 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669

models. These authors state that understanding the term maturity maturity model (Gareis and Huemann, 2007; Gareis and
is the only common feature of the existing models. However, Stummer, 2008). Another example in the aforementioned
Brooks and Clark (2009) have found considerable differences group of maturity models was developed by Cooke-Davies and
regarding the knowledge area considered in the models, Arzymanow (2003), although this model, in comparison to the
ranging from standard knowledge areas to such knowledge previous one, considers different assessment criteria. Besides the
areas that are defined by authors, and they find models which single-project management focus, a few of the models in this
focus on the project management process, while others consider category consider program and/or portfolio management related
organisational related factors as well. Torres (2014) differentiates issues as well.
maturity models based on their approach to determining maturity Since most of the spider web-based maturity models rely on
stage of organisations. In this way, he differentiates (a) continuous professional conjecture or experience-based evidence as assess-
models that define a baseline for assessment and (b) staged models ment criteria, there are significant differences between these
that define steps of maturity. models.
Being inspired by Brooks and Clarke's classification, the Besides the literature on introducing maturity models, there is
author proposes classifying the existing project management literature on assessing project management maturity of organisa-
maturity models according to (a) their underlying notion, (b) their tions by means of different maturity models.
implied primary aim of assessment, (c) the type of assessment Levene et al. (1995) analysed 13 companies operating in
criteria, and (d) the considered project management domains. three different industries, although they found no significant
Models based on notion tend to be ladder-based models and differences as to their project management maturity level. Ibbs
spider-web-based models, while those based on the stated and Kwak (2000) surveyed the maturity level of 38 organisa-
primary aim of assessment tend to be development-centred tions in four different industries. Their research outcomes
(i.e., assessment outcomes are used to develop maturity based on showed higher level maturity in the engineering and construc-
a predefined development method included in these models) and tion industry, while lower level maturity was experienced in the
evaluation-centred (i.e., the immediate aim is the assessment IT/IS industry. Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow (2003) based on
itself, predefined development method is not included) models. their spider web model completed a benchmark analysis which
Those based on the type of assessment criteria tend to be either focused on 21 companies operating in six different industries.
maturity models which rely on a certain documented set of This research highlighted significant differences between the
standard knowledge areas, or models which rely on professional analysed industries. Unlike to this outcome, research completed
conjecture or experience-based evidence (e.g., common consent, by Grant and Pennypacker (2006), based on the PM Solutions'
best practice). At the same time, the considered project Project Management Maturity Model, did not identify significant
management domains may include single-project manage- difference neither between industries nor between companies,
ment, program management, and project portfolio management. while the median maturity level was 2. Mullaly (2006) undertook
Therefore, a certain project management maturity model may fall a longitudinal analysis regarding the likely change of the maturity
under different groups simultaneously. level of some 550 multinational companies (operating in three
A typical example of those maturity models which adopt the different industries) over a 6-year period. He found that during
ladder notion, a documented standard knowledge area (PMI's this period, many of the companies at level 1 were able to
PMBoK) as assessment criteria, as well as being evaluation- increase their maturity level but, surprisingly, a considerable
centred solutions, while it focuses on single-project manage- percentage of those companies which were at level 2 and 3
ment, is the PM Solutions' Project Management Maturity suffered from a decrease regarding their maturity level.
Model (Crawford, 2007; Pennypacker and Grant, 2003). The In the literature, however, there is some scepticism regarding
Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity Model (Ibbs et the assessment of organisational project management maturity.
al., 2004) is very similar to the aforementioned model. Another Ibbs and Kwak (2000) could not identify significant correlation
maturity model which also adopts the ladder notion and is between the use of maturity models and project success.
considered to be an evaluation-centred solution, although it relies Similarly, Mullaly (2006) did not find the use of maturity models
on professional conjectures as assessment criteria, was developed as a leverage of organisational competitive advantage. Yazici
by Andersen and Jessen (2003). PMI's Organisational Project (2009) also did not find unambiguous empirical justification on
Management Maturity Model, i.e., OPM3 (Northrup, 2007; maturity models' contribution to better project performance and,
Project Management Institute, 2013a, 2013b), is considered to in this way, long-term organisational success. Currently, Brooks
be such a three-dimensional (in terms of project management et al. (2014) point out the lack of empirical evidence regarding the
domains) maturity model which adopts the ladder notion and relationship between higher level project management maturity
documented standard knowledge areas to assess maturity level, and higher level project performance.
while it is definitely a development-centred solution. The Office Another part of the literature implies criticisms and highlights
of Government Commerce also has a Portfolio, Programme and some weaknesses of the maturity models. Andersen and Jessen
Project Management Maturity Model, which is referred to as (2003) stress the narrow focus, i.e., the adopted process view, of
P3M3 (OGC, 2010), and it comprises five levels. the approach to many maturity models. Cooke-Davies (2004)
A typical example of those maturity models which adopt the also emphasises the narrow focus of the models, as well as
web-based notion and imply an evaluation centre, while relying pointing out the need for empirical tests to measure the reliability
on experience-based evidence as assessment criteria, is Gareis' of the models. Jugdev (2004) then Jugdev and Müller (2005) go
 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669 1661

further when they give a more detailed criticism of project that process itself is an appropriate tool to improve project
management maturity models. These authors emphasise first of management maturity, thus situational (contextual) factors are
all that these models give a mechanistic view of the organisations, undervalued. The fifth one is the presumption of relevant which
thus they postulate that higher level maturity can be achieved implies that maturity models are appropriate assessment tools.
“through documents, surveys, guidelines, templates, or manuals” As a concluding summary of the literature on organisational
(Jugdev and Müller, 2005, p 21). These authors also state that the project management maturity assessment, the author of this
models generally rely on tangible assets and explicit knowledge, paper might state that:
while they fail to consider intangible assets, such as human and
organisational assets, and tacit knowledge (c.f. Hillson, 2003; • The authors criticise the narrow process-based view and the
Jugdev, 2004; Jugdev and Müller, 2005; Thomas and Mullaly, mechanistic approach implied in the models, and stress the
2007). Accordingly, many authors (Brooks and Clark, 2009; lack of a broader approach (e.g., Cooke-Davies, 2004;
Grant and Pennypacker, 2006; Lee and Anderson, 2006; Thiry, Jugdev, 2004; Jugdev and Müller, 2005; Mullaly, 2014).
2010; Wheatley, 2007), in order to achieve higher level maturity, • The authors stress the lack of considering organisational level
state clearly the need for identifying the organisational level determinants and other contextual factors which also shape the
determinants of project management efficacy that need to be organisational project management maturity (e.g., Brooks and
included within maturity models. Clark, 2009; Grant and Pennypacker, 2006; Hillson, 2003;
At the same time, many of the maturity models “are based Thomas and Mullaly, 2007; Wheatley, 2007).
on anecdotal material, case studies, or espoused best practices” • The authors point out that many of the models are overly
(c.f. Jugdev, 2004, p 20), while their reliability, in most of complex, and they require a bulk of information to complete
the cases, is not justified empirically (c.f. Torres, 2014). In the assessment of maturity (e.g., Hillson, 2003; O'Hara and
line with the previously cited authors, Yazici's (2009) research Levin, 2000; Torres, 2014).
into the relationships between project management maturity
and project performance reveals that the contribution of project At the same time, the current approach to organisational
management maturity to better project performance was deter- project management maturity assessment is not underpinned by
mined by the characteristics of the organisational culture to a means of the commonly agreed concepts of project manage-
great extent. Pasian (2014) also points out the decisive role of ment. This statement seems to be justified, at least indirectly, by
non-process factors in achieving more matured project manage- the contradicting outcomes of those researches that aimed at
ment, especially in case of poorly defined projects. Recently, evaluating project management maturity of different organi-
Mullaly (2014) stresses the need for considering both the sations based on different maturity models (c.f. Grant and
organisational and contextual factors, and he points out the Pennypacker, 2006; Levene et al., 1995; Mullaly, 2006).
need for a contingent view, both in terms of project process and Although most of the existing maturity models do not satisfy the
context, of maturity assessment. expectations properly, the author of this paper might state that
Hillson (2003) then Thomas and Mullaly (2007) point out the concept of organisational project management maturity has
that a few of the models require a bulk of information which may relevance. It implies the potential for both improving project
lead to considerable time and cost when assessing the maturity management preparedness and the associated increasing success
status. In addition, Hillson (2003) and Torres (2014) stress that rate of projects in the organisations. Actually, this likely potential
the overly complex structure of many maturity models might was the underlying idea of developing CMM (c.f. Humphrey,
make the assessment of maturity difficult which could lead to 1992), the first maturity model. However, the highlighted
difficulties of interpreting the outcomes and implementing shortcomings justify the need for a broader approach to
development objectives. Meanwhile, O'Hara and Levin (2000), organisational project management maturity assessment.
to support organisations achieving higher level maturity,
recommend such a metric system which could help avoiding 3. The underlying concepts of a broader approach to the
both time and cost consuming assessment. assessment of organisational project management maturity
In his recent paper, Mullaly (2014), in terms of presumptions,
formulates very challenging statements, which might be consid- To develop a broader approach to organisational project
ered to be a certain kind of summary of the previous critical management maturity, the author considers concepts included
remarks, regarding project management maturity models and the in the assumption formulated earlier in this paper. This section
associated maturity assessment. The first one is the presumption of the paper will introduce these concepts which provide the
of uniformity which implies that maturity models postulate a bases for a broader approach to assessing organisational project
repeatable process performance, while the degree and extent to management maturity. These include (a) the broader view on
which consistency is required for different projects are ignored. the concept of project success and the associated success
The second one is the presumption of certainty and control criteria, and (b) the concept of organisational project manage-
which implies that deviation from established process means less ment and the associated project management governance
matured project management. The third one is the presumption of structure. Each of these concept is thoroughly discussed in the
better which implies that improved project management maturity project management literature, and the related views on these
leads to more value creation, i.e., more successful projects. concepts are mostly accepted by both the academics and
The fourth one is the presumption of meaningful which implies practitioners. In this way, while the fundamental points of the
1662 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669

related views are highlighted, making references only to those organisations. This view implies that central to project manage-
authors who pioneer the different views on a concept or those ment is managing a temporary organisation, i.e., a project team.
who summarise these views on a concept seems sufficient. The third one is the strategic/business view which is in
To introduce a broader view on the concept of project accordance with the strategic role of projects. This view implies
success and the associated success criteria, there is a need for that central to project management is managing the achievement
considering the concept of project management in a broader of beneficial changes implied in the organisational strategic
sense, too, which, however, requires considering the concept of objectives. Since projects are multifaceted phenomena, project
project also in a broader sense. management also needs to be considered in a complex manner.
Over the past few decades, there has been a significant In other words, each of the views on the concept of project
development in the way that projects and project management management needs to be considered in order to cope with
have been perceived by different authors. Prior to the article managing projects as multifaceted phenomena successfully. This
written by Lundin and Söderholm (1995) then Söderlund (2004), also implies that the long-term success of an organisation relies
projects have been considered to be unique tasks, i.e., temporary on the successful completion of a portfolio of projects.
undertakings (c.f. PMI, 1987), which might be described by a The criteria with which the success of projects might be
triangle. However, these authors pioneered a different concept of evaluated have also evolved considerably in line with the
projects. Thanks to their efforts and that of their followers, development of the concept of projects and the approach to (the
nowadays, it is broadly accepted that a project is not only a views regarding) project management, i.e., the concept of
unique and temporary undertaking but a temporary organisation project management. Around the new millennium, Atkinson
as well. Lundin and Söderholm (1995) define the “demarcation (1999), Baccarini (1999), Cooke-Davies (2002b)), De Wit
between the temporary organization and its environment” (p 438) (1988), Wateridge (1997), and others argued for other criteria
by means of four basic interrelated concepts, such as time, task, besides the project triangle (i.e., quality, time, and cost) to
team, and transition. The task is a time-limited action to achieve a evaluate project success. Actually, they argue that the concept
certain transition (change) which, however, requires dedicated of project success and the associated success criteria should
(human) resources, i.e., a team of people. This team of people is correspond with the multifaceted concept of project and also
(due to the time-limited nature of the action) considered to be a the multifaceted concept of project management. Nowadays,
temporary organisation which ceases to exist when the required there seems to be an agreement among professionals regarding
transition is achieved. This concept of projects has fostered the the required broader concept of project success and the criteria
emergence of new insights into managing projects as well. These used to measure success. Recently, Görög (2013) provides an
include project stakeholder management, the role of leadership overview of the evolvement of the concept of project success,
style, human resource and knowledge management, and so forth. and he concluded to three types of success criteria. One of
It should be mentioned here that this concept of projects also them is the traditional project triangle (time, cost, and quality),
implies that each project has a wider organisational context, at the which corresponds with both the triangle (unique undertaking)
very least, its parent organisation. That is, projects, and project concept of projects and the process-centred view of project
programmes as well, operate within a given organisational management, i.e., managing the implementation process of
framework. a unique undertaking. This success criterion measures the
At the same time, Cleland (1990) pioneered that projects efficiency of implementing projects. The other type of success
have a strategic role in organisations. Authors, for example, criterion is referred to as client satisfaction which measures
Andersen and Jessen (2003), Cooke-Davies et al. (2009), the extent to which the completed project result may contribute
Grundy (1998), Kwak and Anbari (2008), Leybourne (2007), to achieving its underlying strategic objective. This success
Mc Elroy (1996) and many others also highlighted the strategic criterion corresponds with both the strategic role of projects
role of projects. Projects are therefore the means by which and the strategic/business view of project management, i.e.,
beneficial changes implied in organisational strategic objectives managing the achievement of beneficial changes implied in
(which may necessitate initiating both single-projects and project the organisational strategic objectives. At the same time, this
programmes) are realised. All in all, projects, and project success criterion measures the effectiveness of the completed
programs as well, are considered to be multifaceted phenomena project result. The third type of success criterion is stakeholder
since they are not only unique and temporary tasks but temporary satisfaction which corresponds with both the concept of project
organisations and strategic building blocks as well. as temporary organisation; and also the team/leadership view
Since projects are perceived in a multifaceted manner, they of project management, i.e., managing the project team as a
require a broader approach to managing them (Bredillet, 2007; temporary organisation. This success criterion may measure
Turner, 2009). Nowadays, there are three major views regarding both efficiency and effectiveness, although mainly indirectly.
“what project management is all about” (Shenhar and Dvir, 2007, Project programmes like projects are also perceived in the
p 96). As these authors point out, one of them is the process- similar manner, i.e., they are both unique and temporary
centred view which is in line with the triangle concept of projects tasks (determined by a triangle) and temporary organisations,
(i.e., they are unique undertakings). This view implies that central while their strategic role is not questionable (c.f. Gareis, 2005).
to project management is managing the implementation process At the same time, managing project programmes also needs a
of a unique undertaking. Another is the team/leadership view broader approach (process-centred view, team/leadership view,
which corresponds with the concept of projects as temporary and strategic/business view); however, program management is
 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669 1663

more than scaled up project management (Görög, 2011; Thiry, Table 2

2007). Although, the success criteria theoretically are the same, The fundamental relationships between project/program participants and the
success criteria.
in the case of project programmes, they need to be considered at
program-level, i.e., in terms of program triangle (quality, time, Success criteria Primary project/program participants
and cost), satisfaction of the program client, and satisfaction of Project/program triangle Project/program manager
the program stakeholders. Project director (if any)
Project/program supervisory board
The multifaceted nature of the concept of projects and the Project/program sponsor
associated multifaceted nature of the concept of project manage- Project/program client satisfaction Project director (if any)
ment require different project management tools to complete Project/program supervisory board
projects successfully according to each success criterion. Different Project/program sponsor
project management tools play a different role in achieving Stakeholder satisfaction Project director (if any)
Project/program sponsor
success according to different success criteria. Each tool may
contribute to achieving success against a certain criterion,
although their influence on the likely success can vary criterion
by criterion. Table 1 summarises the fundamental relationships the fundamental relationships between the project/program
between project management tools and success criteria at single- participants and the success criteria.
project level. When managing project programmes, besides the In order to achieve their strategic objectives, organisations
tools needed to manage single projects, there is a need for need to manage the implementation of a portfolio of projects
program-level tools as well. Although, different program level (single projects and programmes) both efficiently and effec-
tools also have different importance according to different tively, that is successfully. This need requires organisational
success criteria (e.g. Görög, 2011; Thiry, 2002, 2010). In this level project management (c.f. Aubry et al., 2008; Hobbs et al.,
way, when projects are connected in a program by resource- 2008; Julian, 2008). Aubry et al. define organisational project
related interdependence, the program-level use of resource management as such an arena of organisational management
allocation tools, and the associated double scheduling and which focuses on implementing a portfolio of projects in order
process control are decisive to achieve success in terms of the to achieve beneficial changes implied in the strategic objectives.
program triangle. When projects are connected in a program by In this way, organisational project management postulates a
scope-related interdependence, the strategy-based scope defi- project management governance structure which is embedded in
nition of the program result and the associated scope control a corporate governance system. Corporate governance provides
and change management are decisive to achieve success in the structure by means of which organisational objectives are set
terms of client satisfaction (c.f. Görög, 2011). and monitoring performance is determined (OECD, 2004).
The author needs to mention here that the leadership Project governance, in this way, provides such an organisational
style adopted by the project/program manager might have a framework by means of that an organisation deals with single
considerable impact on the likely project success in terms of projects and programmes (Dinsmore and Rocha, 2012, 2013).
each success criteria (c.f. Müller and Turner, 2007). Thus, the concept of organisational project management
At the same time, different project participants (project postulates a set of rules of procedures and an organisational
manager, project sponsor, etc.) are interested in achieving arrangement which latter acts based on the predefined rules.
success against different success criteria. In addition, they can There is agreement among professionals that the appropriate
all contribute to achieving success in different ways. Ideally, organisational arrangement for organisational level project
a certain project participant is interested in such a success management is the Project Management Office which is also
criterion on which she or he can have an impact. The case of referred to as Project Directorate (c.f. Aubry et al., 2007). The
project programmes is also the same. Thus, Table 2 summarises associated set of rules, derived from literature (Dinsmore and
Rocha, 2012, 2013), primarily include

Table 1 • project and program management processes;

The fundamental relationships between the single-project management tools • methods of supervising the implementation of both single-
and the success criteria. projects and project programmes, which includes the role
Success criteria Project management tools and responsibility of project director, and/or that of the PMO
Project triangle Implementation plans and project sponsor;
Risk management • incentive mechanism, which includes motives for project
Process control and program managers, and also for functional managers to
Project organisational forms create interest for supporting projects and programmes by
Client satisfaction Project result/scope definition (objectives)
means of providing resources;
Viability analyses or business case
Project supervision • methods of selecting project and program managers;
Project implementation strategy • methods of human resource management, which cover
Result/scope control selecting and motivating project and program team mem-
Stakeholder satisfaction Stakeholder analysis bers, and also reintegrating them upon completing the
Stakeholder marketing
project/program;
1664 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669

• methods for managing the accumulated project and program the process. This is also supported by the literature on project
management knowledge, which include gathering, generalising management maturity to a certain extent (e.g., Curtis et al., 2009;
and sharing, the knowledge, and also the training of project OGC, 2010; Rad and Levin, 2003). The project management
professionals. process itself is a framework, while the level of professionalism
of the project management professionals can operationalise
In summary, it might be stated that the long-term success of this framework. However, standardising the process itself is an
an organisation relies on successful completion of a portfolio of organisational issue since it is part of the organisational project
projects. In order to achieve success on projects, organisations management governance structure.
need to adopt managing projects: (a) as the implementation Considering the above implications, the author of this paper
process of unique undertakings; (b) as temporary organisations states that the actual level of project/program management
(i.e. the project team); and (c) as creating beneficial changes maturity of an organisation is primarily determined by the
implied in the underlying strategic objectives. On the other following factors:
hand, to achieve success on completing an entire the project
portfolio, which includes single projects and programmes, • The appropriate and purposeful use of the project/program
organisations need to implement organisational level project management toolkit and the associated level of professional-
management, i.e., they need to develop and maintain a project ism of project management professionals. That is, the quality
governance structure, which encompasses an appropriate of dealing with (performing the management of) each project
organisational arrangement and a set of predefined rules, to deal and program. From this point of view, the primary question is
with a portfolio of projects both efficiently and effectively. not only whether a certain project/program management tool
Reliable project management maturity assessment of the is in use to complete the associated project management task
organisations needs to be in line with both the multifaceted but the way in which the tool is used, that is, the degree of
concept of project success, and the associated multifaceted context related applying the project/program management
concept of project management, and the requirements of the toolkit.
concept of organisational project management, i.e., the project • The appropriateness of the project management governance
governance structure. In this way, the implications of these two structure, that is, the appropriateness of the organisational
concepts determine the reasonable assessment criteria to a great arrangement (in the parent organisation of the project/
extent when refining or developing maturity models will be in program) and the set of rules and procedures when dealing
the forefront based on the proposed broader approach. with completing single-projects and programmes.

4. Implications of the underlying concepts for a broader The quality of management of each project and program
approach to the organisational project management fundamentally depends on the project-/program-related profes-
maturity assessment sionalism of the project/program team (including project/program
managers), and the personal characteristics and leadership style
Bearing in mind the multifaceted nature of the concept of of project/program managers. From this point of view, the way
project success and also that of the project management, the of (the underlying approach to) completing different project
author states that considering only the management process management tasks is of great importance. It implies not only the
of implementing projects and programmes when assessing mere knowledge and skill which provide the potential for the
organisational project management maturity is not sufficient. technically proper use of the tools but the approach (the way)
The process-centric approach which is characteristic of most of towards applying the knowledge and skill. The appropriate
the existing maturity models satisfies only the needs of the approach postulates the ability of applying these tools in line
process-centred view (concept) of project management, and the with the actual context of project/program implementation, i.e., a
associated triangle concept of projects, and finally, only the contingent view of applying the tools, especially in those cases
triangle-based success criterion. To achieve reliable maturity when there are more than one tool (e.g., different risk
assessment, it is essential to consider the requirements of the assessment techniques, different project organisational forms,
broader concept of project success and the associated project different leadership styles, etc.) to complete the very same project
management process as well. Since organisational project management task. This need is also supported by the literature on
management has become a need, reliable maturity assessment project management maturity (e.g., Mullaly, 2014). The project
necessitates considering the organisational project governance context that needs to be considered in such a case includes
structure, too, by means of which a portfolio of projects is both the inherent project characteristics (level of uncertainty
completed. This need is also supported by the literature on project and degree of complexity), and organisational characteristics
management maturity to a certain extent (e.g., Brooks and Clark, (e.g., organisational culture, selection method of project/program
2009; Grant and Pennypacker, 2006; Lee and Anderson, 2006; managers, method of project/program supervision etc.).
Mullaly, 2014; Wheatley, 2007). These implications will be This attitude (the contingent view) of applying the project
further discussed in the subsequent part of the paper. management tools is not implied in the current maturity models
In addition to considering the level of standardisation of a clearly, although different authors point out the importance of
project management process itself, it is also important to consider this issue. For example, Cooke-Davies et al. (2009) highlight
the level of professionalism with which tasks are accomplished in the need for matching project management paradigm with the
 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669 1665

strategic position adopted by an organisation. Howell et al. factor (i.e., the use of the project management toolkit and the
(2010), Sauser et al. (2009), and Shenhar and Dvir (2007) associated level of professionalism) may manifest themselves. In
emphasise the role of both the project characteristics and the other words, the extent to which the quality of management of
contextual features when the adopted project management each project and program is performed relies on the appropriate-
paradigm is selected. At the same time, Müller and Turner ness of the organisational project governance structure within
(2007) point out the relationship between project success and which projects and programs operate. At the same time, a
the use of project leadership style. Görög (2005, 2013) devotes low-level quality of the management performance at project and
efforts for the context-related application of the process-related program level could not be compensated by a high-quality (i.e., a
project management tools. This author discusses in detail the properly defined) organisational project governance structure. One
methods based on which the project context and the appropriate of the decisive components in this governance structure is the
project management tool may be matched in case of a given project project management process, especially the degree to which it is
management task. His approach is based on the following defined at organisational level. Since projects/programmes are
assumptions when he discusses this matching problem: (a) projects different both in terms of level of uncertainty and degree of
are different in terms of the extent to which they comprise their complexity (c.f. Geraldi et al., 2011; Turner and Cochrane, 1993),
inherent characteristics (i.e., level of uncertainty and degree of there is a need for such a process definition which (a) provides a
interdependency/complexity), while they are implemented in foreseeable track for each project/program, (b) ensures flexibility
different organisational context; (b) none of those project in case of uncertain and/or complex projects/programs. Thus, a
management tools which are available to complete the very wisely defined project/program management process should be
same project management task is better than another, while neither too rigorous nor too superficial.
each of them has both advantageous and disadvantageous These two determining factors might mutually influence each
features. Thus, both the characteristics of projects and that of other. In order to have a comprehensive and reliable picture about
their contextual features, and the features of the project the project/program management maturity of an organisation, both
management tools need to be matched. A good case in point the factors need to be assessed. Since these two factors may be
is identifying the appropriate single-project organisational assessed against different sets of criteria, it is wise to consider them
arrangement. When a project is characterised by high level of in different assessment models. Although both program manage-
uncertainty and high degree of complexity regarding its ment and single-project management require process-related
implementation process, there is no potential for preparing professionalism, these two kinds of professionalism are different,
reliable implementation plans. The project, in such a case, needs while not all organisations require program management prepared-
to face with many unforeseen decisions, thus there is a need for ness. Consequently, process-related single-project management
intensive co-ordination to provide potential for sufficient maturity and process related program management maturity also
implementation. Since a linear-functional-based project organi- need to be assessed separately.
sation implies a long decision-making process, it could not The considered determining factors of the organisational
provide potential for sufficient co-ordination and implementation project management maturity highlighted above make it clear
of such a project, thus the use of it would result in both time and and justify why the project management maturity of organisa-
cost overrun in this case. However, a project task force, due to its tions needs to be evaluated at least at the following three levels:
characteristics, could provide sufficient co-ordination, due to its
short reaction time, thus the use of it support avoiding time and • single-project management,
cost overrun. At the same time, an inappropriate organisational • program management,
culture could not support the use of matrix-based project • organisational project governance structure.
organisation, since in such a case there is no potential for making
compromise by the functional managers and the project manager. In addition, the interrelationships between success criteria,
Other examples for the context-related application of the process project/program management tools, and project/program par-
related project management tools, e.g., identifying the appropri- ticipants, and the (appropriate level of) professionalism needed
ate project implementation strategy in terms contract type and in the implementation process determine the criteria to be
payment type, are found in Görög (2013). used when assessing project management maturity in terms of
When considering the context related, i.e., contingent applica- management-process-related maturity both at single-project and
tion of the available project management tools, project managers program management level. The criteria used to assess project
may rely on the CIFTER model (GAPPS, 2007). This model management maturity in terms of the organisational project
includes 7 factors which determine both the uncertainty and governance structure are derived from literature (Aubry et al.,
interdependency/complexity of a project. Each of these factors 2007; Dinsmore and Rocha, 2012, 2013; Fortune and White,
might be scored based on a scale ranging from 1 to 4. Based on 2006; OECD, 2004).
these assessment outcomes, project managers can match the most To make the proposed approach to maturity assessment
appropriate project management tool and the characteristics of the more operable, the following limitations are considered when
project context in case of a given project management task. developing the assessment models will be in the forefront:
The other factor determining the actual level of project/program
management maturity of an organisation is the organisational • The project management maturity assessment models might
project governance structure in which the components of the first primarily focus on project and program management maturity
1666 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669

of organisations. Project portfolio management requires a manner. The considered criteria are in line with the relation-
strategy-oriented and a decision-focused approach, while both ships highlighted in Table 1; however, due to the single-project
project and program management imply an implementation- level assessment, these criteria overlap to a certain extent with
focused approach (c.f. Blomquist and Müller, 2006; Görög, the standard knowledge areas found in PMBoK (Project
2011; Thiry, 2004). In this way, project portfolio management Management Institute, 2013a, 2013b). In order to minimise
is not a higher level (or scaled up) project management since it the potential for subjective judgement, each criterion of the
is rather about matching appropriate project ideas with strategic assessment needs to be broken down into appropriate number
objectives. Thus, assessment of project portfolio management of sub-criteria.
maturity requires a different approach. The project phase of defining the expected project result
• The assessment models might primarily adopt a client is evaluated by means of the following criteria: (a) scope
perspective based on the phases implied in the strategy- definition of the desired project result, (b) viability analyses of
oriented project/program cycle (c.f. Görög, 2013; Thiry, 2004). the desired project result, and (c) making decision regarding the
These models then, however, might be adapted to the needs of desired project result.
project/program performer (project-based) organisations. The project initiation phase, which is primarily decisive in
• The assessment models might primarily adopt an evaluation- case of internal projects, is evaluated by means of the following
centred solution. The reason for this is that different criteria: (a) planning the implementation, (b) defining risk
organisations implement their projects and programmes in management methods, (c) formulating stakeholder manage-
different industrial context and markets, thus there is no one ment methods, (d) defining baseline values for the success
uniform way to develop their organisational project manage- criteria, (e) identifying project organisational arrangement,
ment maturity (c.f. Albrecht and Spang, 2014a, 2014b; Torres, (f) defining project control methods, (g) defining change
2014). Consequently, the assessment models might adopt management methods, and (h) defining quality management
a spider web notion to visualise the assessment outcomes methods.
clearly. This provides the potential for highlighting and The phase of awarding the implementation, which is
perceiving more easily both the strengths and weaknesses of primarily decisive in case of external projects, is evaluated by
organisational maturity level. means of the following criteria: (a) defining the method of
• The assessment models need to consider only the most allocating risks and responsibilities (project implementation
decisive assessment criteria in order to avoid both time- and strategy) between the parties, (b) method of identifying the best
cost-consuming assessment process (c.f. Hillson, 2003; bid, (c) appropriateness of the bid invitation and (d) appropriate-
O'Hara and Levin, 2000; Torres, 2014). ness of the contractual agreement.
The implementation phase is evaluated by means of the
5. The framework of the proposed assessment models following criteria: (a) the method of making corrective actions,
(b) the method of initiating and making decision on changes,
Taking into account the considered underlying concepts of (c) the method of making decision on quality issues, (d) the
the broader approach to organisational project management management process of testing the completed project result.
maturity assessment and their previously discussed implica- The post-evaluation phase is evaluated by means of the
tions, and also the considered limitations, in this section of the following criteria: (a) the methods of evaluating success
paper, the author introduces the framework of the proposed achieved, (b) the methods of evaluating managing the project.
assessment models in brief. At program level, which is the second level of maturity
At single-project level, the first level of maturity assessment, assessment, 6 criteria are involved in the maturity assessment
the following criteria are involved in the assessment model model, derived from Görög (2011). Since managing project
which is encapsulated in Fig. 1 in a project cycle phase-based programmes also needs the tools of managing single-projects,
the program-level maturity model includes only the program
management-specific assessment criteria which are as follows:
Definition of the
project result (a) program-level use of resource allocation tools, (b) the use of
5 double scheduling, (c) program-level process control of imple-
4 mentation, (d) strategy-based scope definition of the program
result, (e) program-level scope/result control, and (f) program-level
3
change management. Outcomes of the program-level maturity
Post-evaluation Project initiation
2 assessment might be visualised based on a hexagonal spider web.
1
The use of appropriate number of sub-criteria in case of each
criterion, to increase the potential for objectivity, is also needed.
At the level of organisational project governance structure,
which is the third level of maturity assessment, 6 criteria are
involved in the maturity model derived from literature (Aubry
Awarding the
Implementation
implementation et al., 2007; Dinsmore and Rocha, 2012, 2013; Fortune and
White, 2006; OECD, 2004). The associated framework of this
Fig. 1. Maturity model for single-project level—according to project phases. maturity model is presented in Fig. 2.
 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669 1667

Methods of human resource

management (3)

5
Methods of supervising the Methods of selecting project
implementation (3) 4 and/or program managers
(3)
3

Definition of the project Methods of knowledge

and/or program management (2)
management process (2)

Incentive mechanism (2)

Fig. 2. Maturity model for project governance structure.

The considered criteria are also broken down into sub- criteria. Thus, the proposed maturity models have the potential
criteria, and the number of these suggested sub-criteria is for contributing to achieving higher success rate in the course of
indicated in brackets in case of each criterion. implementing single-projects and project programmes in the
organisations.
6. Summary and conclusions The other theoretical contribution of this paper relates to
the primary determining factors of the organisational project
The proposed broader approach to organisational project management maturity. This paper, based on considering the
management maturity assessment was formulated based on concept of organisational project management, highlighted the
a broader view on the concept of project success (and the determining role of, besides the process related professional-
associated success criteria), and the concept of organisational ism, the organisational project governance structure. Thus, the
project management. Based on these concepts, the author proposed maturity models have the potential for completing
introduced a broader approach to and presented the framework maturity assessment in line with each primary determining
of the associated maturity models for organisational project factors of the organisational project management maturity.
management maturity assessment. The third theoretical contribution relates to revealing the
Based on the proposed broader approach, the author relationship between standardisation of the project management
propagates separate project management maturity assessment in process and professionalism of the project/program team. The
terms of (a) single-project management maturity, (b) program author considers project/program management process to be an
management maturity, and (c) organisational project governance important contributing factor to the level of organisational
structure maturity. Both single-project and program management project management maturity; however, the role of process is
maturity assessment focus on the available process-related considered differently in this paper. Projects and programmes
professionalism. At the same time, organisational project in different industries are different in terms of the level of
governance structure assessment focuses on the appropriateness uncertainty and the degree of complexity. Thus, these different
of the project/program-management-related organisational level industries have different potential for defining project manage-
project management governance framework. ment process accurately.
Although organisations made considerable investments in However, the management process includes the same
applying maturity models with little return in improved success project/program management tasks, although completing these
rate achieved on projects, Brooks et al. (2014) highlighted task necessitates different approaches and different tools due to
the very limited number of those researches which explore the different level of uncertainty and the different degree of
the impact of using these models. However, the outcomes complexity characteristic to each project and program. Estab-
presented in this paper provide potential for formulating both lishing a process based on a higher level abstraction of the
theoretical contributions and managerial implications as well, project/program management process (e.g., at the level of the
which have the potential for increasing the return of investment. project cycle, and focusing on the primary project/program
One of the theoretical contributions includes providing management tasks) might provide a foreseeable track and
conceptual bases for organisational project management maturity allow exercising control, while it might ensure flexibility when
assessment. In this way, the resulted maturity models, especially needed. At the same time, the (level of) project/program
the considered assessment criteria, are in line with the success management professionalism of the project/program team
1668 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669

makes the process operable. This professionalism needs to Conflict of interest

encompass not only the technically proper use of the available
tools but the context-related (contingent) application of these tools There is no conflict of interest.
as well. This is the way in which the project/program team might
utilise the required flexibility of a properly established project/ References
program management process. Thus, a properly established, i.e., a
flexible, process allows potential for a certain degree of uniformity Albrecht, J.C., Spang, K., 2014a. Linking the benefits of project management
in terms of the management process, while it makes possible maturity to project complexity. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (2), 285–301.
Albrecht, J.C., Spang, K., 2014b. Project complexity as an influence factor on
utilising different approaches and using different tools to complete
the balance of costs and benefits in project management maturity modelling.
a certain project/program management task. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 119, 162–171.
The proposed approach to assessing organisational project Andersen, E.S., Jessen, S.A., 2003. Project maturity in organisations. Int.
management maturity in case of using maturity models J. Proj. Manag. 21, 457–461.
developed accordingly might imply the following managerial Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best
guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int.
implications:
J. Proj. Manag. 17, 337–342.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Thuillier, D., 2007. A new framework for understanding
• Providing the potential for organisations to relate the assessment organisational project management through the PMO. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
outcomes of the three levels of maturity (single-project, project 25, 328–336.
program, organisational project governance structure) to Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Thuillier, D., 2008. Organisational project management:
a historical approach to the study of PMOs. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 38–43.
each other. The existing interrelationships between the three
Baccarini, D., 1999. The logical framework method for defining project
dimensions of maturity could make it possible to formulate a success. Proj. Manag. J. 30 (4), 25–32.
more purposeful development strategy for their organisational Blomquist, T., Müller, R., 2006. Middle Managers in Program and Portfolio
project management maturity. Management: Practice, Roles and Responsibilities. Project Management
• The proposed phase-based assessment could support orga- Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Bredillet, C.N., 2007. From the editor – the link research-practice: a matter of
nisations to identify those phases of the project/program
“Ingenium” (Part3). Proj. Manag. J. 38 (1), 3–4.
cycle which have primary importance from the point of Brooks, N., Clark, R., 2009. Using maturity models to improve project
view of their further development. In this way, the proposed management practice. POM 20th Annual Conference of the Production and
approach also could contribute to formulating a more properly Operations Management Society, Orlando, Florida, USA.
focused development strategy for organisational project Brooks, N., Butler, M., Dey, P., Clark, R., 2014. The use of maturity models in
improving project management performance. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (2),
management maturity either regarding their single-project
231–246.
management or program management maturity. Cleland, D.I., 1990. Project Management – Strategic Design and Implemen-
• The proposed approach implies the potential for developing tation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
models to assess organisational project management maturity Cleland, D.I., Ireland, L.R., 2002. Project Management – Strategic Design and
regarding internal projects/programs and external projects/ Implementation. 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cooke-Davies, T., 2002a. Project Management Maturity Models – Does It
programs separately. This potential also supports formulating
Make Sense to Adopt One? Project Manager Today, May. pp. 1–4.
a more appropriate development strategy. Cooke-Davies, T., 2002b. The real success factors on projects. Int. J. Proj.
• The proposed approach may be adapted to the characteristics Manag. 20, 185–190.
of organisations involved in projects/programs as external Cooke-Davies, T., 2004. Project management maturity models. In: Morris,
performers (project-based organisations) as well. P.G.W., Pinto, J.K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Cooke-Davies, T., Arzymanow, A., 2003. The maturity of project management
Finally, the above considered managerial implications could in different industries: an investigation into variations between project
provide the potential, bearing in mind the interrelationships management models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 471–478.
highlighted in Table 2, for identifying those project/program Cooke-Davies, T.J., Crawford, L.H., Lechler, T.G., 2009. Project management
participants (team members, sponsors etc.) who need to be systems: moving project management from an operational to a strategic
discipline. Proj. Manag. J. 40 (1), 110–123.
further developed regarding certain project/program manage-
Crawford, J.K., 2007. Project Management Maturity Model. 2nd edn.
ment knowledge areas. Auerbach, New York.
Curtis, B., Hefley, W.E., Miller, S.A., 2009. People Capability Maturity Model
7. Limitations and further research (P-CMM) Version 2.0. 2nd edn. (CMU/SEI – 2009 – TR – 003).
De Wit, A., 1988. Measurement of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 6, 164–170.
Dinsmore, P., Rocha, L., 2012. Enterprise Project Governance. AMACOM,
The proposed broader approach as a whole is based on such
New York.
concepts which are filtered from project management literature. Dinsmore, P., Rocha, L., 2013. What is enterprise project governance? PM
However, the assessment models developed based on this World J. 2 (10), 1–5.
approach need to be empirically tested as well. Thus, potential Duffy, J., 2001. Maturity models – blueprints for e-volution. Strateg. Leadersh.
further research efforts might include (a) refining the existing 29 (6), 19–26.
Fortune, J., White, D., 2006. Framing of project critical success factors by a
models accordingly; (b) testing the reliability, including practi-
systems model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 53–65.
cability, of the proposed models, and (c) testing the availability of Gareis, R., 2005. Happy Projects! MANZ, Vienna.
the highlighted managerial implications in the course of using Gareis, R., Huemann, M., 2007. Maturity models for the project-oriented company.
these models. In: Turner, J.R. (Ed.), Handbook of Project Management. Gower, Aldershot.
 M. Görög / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1658–1669 1669

Gareis, R., Stummer, M., 2008. Process & Projects. MANZ, Wien. Mullaly, M., 2014. If maturity is the answer, then exactly what was the
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., Williams, T., 2011. Now let's make it really complex question? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (2), 169–185.
(complicated). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31 (9), 966–990. Müller, R., Turner, J.R., 2007. Matching the project manager's leadership style
Global Allience for Project Performance Standards, 2007. A framework for to project type. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 21–32.
performance based competency standards for global level 1 and 2 project Northrup, J.A., 2007. Every Organization Can Implement OPM3®! Triple
managers. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://globalpmstandards.org/ Constraint, Marion.
wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/GAPPS_Project_Manager_v1.1150411_A4.pdf. Office of Government Commerce, 2010. Portfolio, Programme and Project
Görög, M., 2005. Towards professionalisation in project management. Proceed- Management Maturity Model (P3M3), v 2. 1. OGC, London.
ings of the 5th EURAM Conference, Münich, Germany. O'Hara, S., Levin, G., 2000. Using metrics to demonstrate the value of project
Görög, M., 2011. Translating single project management knowledge to project management. PMI Annual Seminar & Symposium. PMI, Houston, TX.
programs. Proj. Manag. J. 42 (2), 17–31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004. OECD
Görög, M., 2013. A Strategic Oriented Implementation of Projects. Project Principles of Corporate Governance. OECD Publication Service, Paris.
Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Pasian, B.L., 2011. Project Management Maturity: A Critical Analysis of
Grant, K.P., Pennypacker, J.S., 2006. Project management maturity: an assessment Existing and Emergent Contributing Factors (PhD thesis) University of
of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. Technology, Sydney.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 53 (1), 59–68. Pasian, B.L., 2014. Extending the concept and modularization of project
Grundy, T., 1998. Strategic implementation and project management. Int. management maturity with adaptable, human and customer factors. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 16, 43–50. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (2), 186–214.
Hillson, D., 2003. Assessing organizational project management capability. Pennypacker, J.S., Grant, K.P., 2003. Project management maturity: an industry
J. Facil. Manag. 2 (3), 298–311. benchmark. Proj. Manag. J. 34 (1), 4–11.
Hobbs, B., Aubry, M., Thuillier, D., 2008. The project management office as an Project Management Institute, 1987. Project Management Body of Knowledge
organisational innovation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 547–555. (PMBOK). Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA.
Howell, D., Windahl, C., Seidel, R., 2010. A project contingency framework Project Management Institute, 2013a. Organizational Project Management Maturity
based on uncertainty and its consequences. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, Model (OPM3®). Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
256–264. Project Management Institute, 2013b. Project Management Body of Knowledge
Humphrey, S.W., 1992. Introduction to Software Process Improvement. Software (PMBOK). Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Engineering Institute at Carnagie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA. Rad, P.F., Levin, G., 2003. Achieving Project Management Success Using
Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y.H., 2000. Assessing project management maturity. Proj. Virtual Teams. J. Ross Publishing, Boca Raton.
Manag. J. 31 (1), 32–43. Rad, P.F., Levin, G., 2005. Metrics for Project Management – Formalized
Ibbs, C.W., Reginato, J.M., Kwak, Y.H., 2004. Developing project management Approaches. Management Concepts, Vienna.
capability: benchmarking, maturity, modelling, gap analyses, and ROI studies. Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R., Shenhar, A.J., 2009. Why projects fail? How
In: Morris, P.G.W., Pinto, J.K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. contingency theory can provide new insights – a comparative analysis of
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter loss. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 665–679.
Iqbal, S., 2013. Organizational maturity: managing programs better. In: Levin, Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., 2007. Project management research – the challenge and
G. (Ed.), Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach. CRC Press/ opportunity. Proj. Manag. J. 38 (2), 93–99.
Auerbach, Boca Raton. Skulmoski, G., 2001. Project maturity and competence interface. Cost Eng. 43
Jugdev, K., 2004. Through the looking glass: examining theory development in (6), 11–18.
project management with the resource-based view lens. Proj. Manag. J. 35 Söderlund, J., 2004. Building theories of project management: past research,
(3), 15–26. questions for the future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 183–191.
Jugdev, K., Müller, R., 2005. A retrospective look at our evolving understanding Thiry, M., 2002. Combining value and project management into an effective
of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (4), 19–31. programme management model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 221–227.
Julian, J., 2008. How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project Thiry, M., 2004. “For DAD”: a programme management life-cycle process. Int.
learning and continuous improvement. Proj. Manag. J. 39 (3), 43–58. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 245–252.
Kerzner, H., 2005. Using the Project Management Maturity Model. 2nd edn. Thiry, M., 2007. Managing portfolios of projects. In: Turner, J.R. (Ed.), Gower
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Handbook of Project Management. Gower, Aldershot.
Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T., 2008. Impact on Project Management of Allied Thiry, M., 2010. Program management. Gower, Farnham, Surrey.
Disciplines. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Thomas, J., Mullaly, M., 2007. Understanding the value of project management:
Kwak, Y.H., Ibbs, C.W., 2002. Project management process maturity model. first steps on an international investigation in search of value. Proj. Manag. J.
J. Manag. Eng. 150–155 (July). 38 (3), 74–89.
Lee, L.S., Anderson, R.M., 2006. An Exploratory Investigation of the Antecedents Torres, L., 2014. A Contingency View on the Effect of Project Management
of the IT Project Management Capability. e-Service JournalIndiana University Maturity on Perceived Performance (PhD thesis) Skema Business School.
Press, pp. 27–42. Turner, J.R., 2009. Handbook of Project Based Management: Leading Strategic
Levene, R.J., Bentley, A.E., Jarvis, G.S., 1995. The scale of project management. Changes in Organizations. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York/
Proceedings of the 26th Annual Project Management Institute Symposium, London.
New Orleans, LA, pp. 500–507. Turner, J.R., Cochrane, R.A., 1993. Goals-and-method matrix: coping with
Leybourne, S., 2007. The changing bias of project management research: a projects and/or methods of achieving them. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 11, 93–102.
consideration of the literatures and an application of extant theory. Proj. van den Honert, A., 1994. The strategic connection with project process. Proceedings
Manag. J. 38 (1), 61–73. of the 12th World Congress on Project Management vol. 1. Elsevier/International
Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., 1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Journal of Project Management, Oslo, Norway, pp. 179–188.
Scand. J. Manag. 11, 437–455. Wateridge, J., 1997. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? Int.
Mc Elroy, W., 1996. Implementing strategic change through projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 16, 53–63.
J. Proj. Manag. 14, 325–329. Wheatley, M., 2007. Maturity matters. PM Netw. 21 (7), 49–53.
Mullaly, M., 2006. Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity. Proj. Yazici, H.J., 2009. The role of project management maturity and organizational
Manag. J. 36 (3), 62–73. culture in perceived performance. Proj. Manag. J. 40 (3), 14–33.