Escritório de Projetos

O maior conteúdo gratuito de gerenciamento de projetos do Brasil

Project Management News

Introduction to Maturity in Project Management

Maturity in Project Management Series[1]

By Russell D. Archibald & Darci Prado

Introduction to a SERIES of ARTICLES on Maturity of Organizations in Project Management

This is the first of a series of articles on this important subject. This article provides a general introduction to the topic of measuring project management (PM) maturity, the benefits that this measurement can provide, and identifies some of the models that are being used for that purpose. Subsequent articles in this series with cover these topics:

  • A better explanation of Prado-Project Management Maturity Model
  • Further analysis of PM maturity research results in Brazil,
  • Some real world Brazilian case studies (Brazil Central Bank, Building Construction Industry, Government, others),
  • Results of some Brazilian graduate survey studies (MBA, MSc, PhD) related to PM maturity, and
  • Articles by others reporting on experience in applying PMI´s OPM3, the UK´s P3M3© and PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM), IPMA-Prisma and perhaps others.

 

Introduction to Maturity in Project Management

 

Purpose and Benefits of Measuring PM Maturity in Organizations[2]

 

Measuring the maturity of an enterprise regarding its program/project management success capabilities has become an important subject. Hundreds of "Project Management Maturity Models" have been developed and used in the past two decades with the objective of measuring the level of project management maturity within all types of enterprises and for most of the many categories of projects. These models range from simple to very complex. The most widely used of these models have been developed primarily for large, complex organizations, and these have become excellent sources of business for specialized consultants. The purposes of these models are to:

  • identify where improvements are required,
  • improve both the selection and the execution of the enterprise´s programs and projects, and
  • benchmark one enterprise or one division of an enterprise against its competitors or counterparts with regard to the specific categories of programs and projects of importance to that enterprise.

 

Project Management Maturity Can Be Viewed from Three Perspectives

These three perspectives are:

  1. Operations versus project management: How well the project management discipline is integrated with operations management. Indicators of relative maturity from this perspective can be subjectively determined by evaluating these factors, among others:
  1. Rank and responsibilities of Project Sponsors,
  2. PMO placements and definitions of their responsibilities, and
  3. Degree of conflict between Project and Functional Managers.
  1. Strategic enterprise management versus project and program portfolio management: Are all programs and projects within the enterprise truly aligned with the current, approved strategic objectives? Are strategic transformational programs being managed as effectively as the commercial or delivery programs and projects within the organization?
  2. PM Maturity of an organizational unit versus maturity within project categories: Many project management maturity models are applied (incorrectly, in our view) to measure the PM success capabilities of a company or division as a whole when they should be more appropriately applied to measure the organization´s maturity with regard to managing (selecting, planning, scheduling, monitoring, and controlling) each of the specific categories of projects that exist within the organization.... An organization can be very mature and successful in selecting and managing a specific category of projects and programs, especially for commercial or delivery projects, but at the same time it can be very immature in managing its strategic transformational programs. An organization can be very mature and successful in managing IT software projects while simultaneously being very immature and unsuccessful in managing the design and construction of a new office building or process plant.

 

Importance of and Benefits from Measuring Project, Program, and Portfolio Management (PPPM) Capability Maturity

This maturity assessment identifies the need for and opportunities to improve these capabilities within the organization for each project category, and also enables world-wide comparison and benchmarking with similar organizations and for similar project categories. Research now shows conclusively that increasing an enterprise´s PPPM maturity produces greater success in selecting, planning and executing its projects, and this in turn produces greater success of the enterprise.

 

Project Management Maturity Models

o Identify where Project Management improvements are required.

o Enable benchmarking corporate PM performance against others,
including competitors.

o Give clear indications of strengths and weaknesses.

o Can lead to significant competitive advantages if follow-up
improvements are made.

 

Properly assessing the organization´s PPPM management maturity enables developing a realistic plan of action to improve these capabilities and to increase your rate of successful projects and your overall competitiveness.

 

Which PM Maturity Model Should You Use?                                         

 

There are many PM maturity models to choose from, including these widely used models:

The following text describes the five first models. For the three last models see the given links.

 

PMI´s Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3®) (from the official PMI site at http://marketplace.pmi.org/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?GMProduct=00101463501):

Price: US$95.95, PMI Member Price: $76.75

 

Since its release in 2003, the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3®) has been used by organizations around the world to minimize risk, drive the right projects, and align investments to accelerate organizational success.

 

Organizations turn to OPM3® because it helps them bridge the gap between strategy and individual projects, and provides a way to advance strategic interests through the application of project management principles and practices.

 

Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3®) - Third Edition is the result of years of development and continues to build on the foundation formed by the input of hundreds of project management practitioners and consultants from countries around the world.

 

This newest edition not only delivers the latest best practices, it also encompasses multiple expansions and changes, including:

 

OPM3 - MATURITY EVALUATION:
Dimensions

 

Through a questionnaire, it is possible to assess how mature the organization is on the Best Practices. This questionnaire applies to the following dimensions:

 

  1. Dimension "Stage of Processes Improvement":
  • Standardization
  • Measurement
  • Control
  • Continuous Improvement
  1. Dimension "Domains":
  • Projects
  • Programs
  • Portfolios
  1. Dimension " Progression of Incremental Capabilities"
  2. Dimension "Linkage to the Standards Processes of PM of PMI" (Portfolios, Programs and Projects)

 

Assessment: The Questionnaire

The questionnaire to assess the maturity level of an organization consists of 120 questions (Version 2), with answers like "Yes" or "No", as follows:

  • Questions related to processes described in the manual Standard for Project Management (PMBOK);
  • Questions related to the processes described in the manual Standard for Program Management;
  • Questions related to the processes described in the manual Standard for Portfolio Management.

 

Each question is subdivided into 4 parts to measure:

  • Standardization
  • Measurement
  • Control
  • Continuous Improvement

 

The Evaluation Results

The questionnaire is filled out using an Interactive Computerized System available on a CD. The program evaluates the answers and provides the results, as the following example (see Figure 1):

 

  • Overall Evaluation: The level of organizational maturity is 30%

 

  • Evaluation by Domain:
    • The level of maturity in projects is: 50%
    • The level of maturity in programs is: 25%
    • The level of maturity portfolios is: 15%

 

  • Evaluation by Stages:
    • Standardization: Maturity = 60%
    • Measurement: Maturity = 15%
    • Control: Maturity = 10%
    • Continuous Improvement: Maturity = 5%

 

    Figure 1: OPM3: Example of Presentation of Evaluation Results (partial).

 

Improvement Plan

The program that is available on CD provides, in addition to assessment results, an Improvement Plan that addresses the best practices that the organization has demonstrated gaps. Note that, to OPM3, a Best Practice is split into Capabilities and the program also identifies which capabilities the organization needs to improve. There are approximately 600 Best Practices in Database Best Practice and each consists of two or more capabilities. In addition, each capability is associated with a form of measurement of results that would be produced if the organization owned it.

 

Implementation Plan

After identifying the Improvement Plan, it is the organization responsibility to create its Implementation Plan. The Interactive Computerized System, available on CD, provides guidance to trace the Implementation Plan.

 

KERZNER - PMMM

 

Kerzner's model[3], released in 1998, contains 183 questions. It allows you to measure how the organization is positioned at six levels, but does not provide a final note, that is, provides only the percentage of achievement of each level. The levels are (Figure 2):

 

  • Level 0 - Home (starting level)
  • Level 1 - Common language
  • Level 2 - Common processes
  • Level 3 - Methodology single
  • Level 4 - Benchmarking
  • Level 5 - Continuous Improvement

 


Figure 2. The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model.

 

A more detailed description of the levels is presented below:

 

Level 1 - Common Language

  • Sporadic use of project management.
  • Small focus of interest in the discipline.
  • No investment in training in project management.  

 

Level 2 - Common Process

  • Management support across the organization.
  • Development of a curriculum management.

 

Level 3 - Unique Methodology

  • Integrated Processes.
  • Cultural and managerial support.
  • Financial benefits arising from management training.

 

Level 4 - Benchmarking

  • Qualitative and quantitative analysis and assessment practices.
  • Project Management Office established      

 

Level 5 - Continuous Improvement

  • Archive of lessons learned. Knowledge transfer between teams.
  • Established a monitoring program.
  • Established the use of continuous strategic planning.

 

IPMA - Delta Model

 

(from the official site of IPMA  http://ipma.ch/certification/certify-organisations/deltacompetence-classes/)

 

IPMA Delta's model, released in 2011, integrates state-of-the-art know-how covering a 360° perspective of organisational competence in project management. It uses the IPMA Competence Baseline to assess the competence of selected individuals (module I) and the IPMA Project Excellence Model to assess the PM competence and results in selected projects and programmes (module P). Module O is used to assess the Organisational Competence in Managing Projects based on the IPMA Organisational Competence Baseline.

 

All modules are cross-referenced and interlinked (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The IPMA Delta Project Management Maturity Model.

 

IPMA Delta offers five competence classes: initial, defined, standardised, managed, optimising. These competence classes describe an organisation´s current project management competence.

 

Class 1: Initial

The achievements of project management are at a personal level. There are individuals who perform well, but the performance is coincidental. The organization has no formal PM standards, structures and processes in place.

 

Class 2: Defined

There are partially defined P standards, structures and processes in place, which are partially applied in the organization.

 

Class 3: Standardized

There are fully defined PM standards, structures and processes in place, which are mostly applied throughout the organization.

 

Class 4: Managed

There are fully defined PM standards, structures and processes in place, which are fully applied throughout the organization, which the management actively controls.

 

Class 5: Managed

There are fully defined PM standards, structures and processes in place, which are fully applied throughout the organization, which the management actively controls and continuously develops.

 

IPMA offers the best way to identify possible development of an organisation´s project management competence. Since organisations determine the competence class they want to reach, IPMA Delta shows how to develop from one class to the next, from one dimension to the next, for the organisational Delta Effect.

 

PRINCE2 Maturity Models (from the official PRINCE2 web site at http://www.prince2.com/prince2-maturity-models):

 

PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM)

 

1.   Carried out by a PRINCE2 Registered Consultant (P2RC)

 

2.   Enables organisations to gauge, by assessment, their maturity in the use of PRINCE2

  • Understand key practices
  • Identify key practices that need to be embedded to achieve the next level
  • Consists of 16 `key process area´ with a set of key practices for each

 

3.   Provide a focus for improvement

 

4.   Provide verified evidence of maturity at three levels

  • Initial - projects are recognized and managed as such
  • Repeatable - each project is run with its own processes
  • Defined - Centrally controlled project process exists

 

Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3©)

 

1. Carried out by a Programme and Project Management Registered Consultant (PPMRC)

 

2. The overarching P3M3 model is made up of three sub-models

  • PfM3 - Portfolio Management Maturity Model
  • PgM3 - Programme Management Maturity Model
  • PjM3 - Project Management Maturity Model

 

3. Consists of five maturity levels, seven perspectives, attributes and generic attributes

 

4. External assessment process providing verified evidence of maturity at five levels

  • Recognition
  • Repeatable
  • Defined
  • Managed
  • Optimized

 

5. Perspectives considered are:

  • Management control
  • Benefits Management
  • Financial Management
  • Risk Management
  • Organisational improvement
  • Organisation Governance
  • Resource Management

 

6. Developed from the SEI model

 

Prado PMM Model (Brazil): 
(See
http://www.maturityresearch.com/ for a detailed description of this model)

 

This model has been in use in Brazil since 2002 and it is now on 2nd Version. It consists of five levels and enables measurement of maturity across the seven dimensions, as shown in Figure 4. A detailed description of this model is available on the above site in English, Portuguese, and Italian, together with a number of research reports reflecting the maturity results obtained in Brazil from 2005 through 2012.

For more details see www.maturityresearch.com.

 

 

Figure 4. The Prado Project Management Maturity Model.

 

A detailed description of the levels follows:

 

  1. Initial
  • Little knowledge of the subject
  • Lack of methodology and/or management models
  • Use of intuition in management of projects.

 

  1. Known - Isolated Initiatives
  • Basic knowledge of project management.
  • Use of tools (software) to sequence activities.
  • Lack of a platform for project management (standardized processes, tools, organizational structure, etc.).
  • Isolated initiative to plan and control projects.

 

  1. Standardized
  • Implementation of a standardized platform for project management:
    • Organizational Structure  
    • Methodology
    • Computerization
    • Strategic Alignment
  • Evolution in competences (project management, technical and behavioral competences).

 

  1. Managed
  • Improvement of the platform: the standards work
  • Anomalies identified and eliminated
  • Effective human relationships
  • Consolidation of alignment with the organization's business.

 

  1. Optimized
  • Optimization of processes, structures and tools
  • Optimization of terms, scope, quality and costs
  • Technical optimization

The Prado PM Maturity Model can be used without cost by any organization in the world that wants to determine where its PM capabilities require improvement, and how it stands against other similar organizations in several countries. Unlike some PM maturity assessment processes, this model and its assessment process is easy to implement, requiring only 60-90 minutes to complete the questionnaire (depending on the size and complexity of the department or organization).

 

The core of the survey is a set of 40 questions to evaluate the maturity of a department within an organization. It is important that the questions are answered seriously and with honesty, and with consistent knowledge of the project management methods actually used in the department that is being evaluated.

 

When using the site www.maturityresearch.com, the results are provided on-line immediately upon completion of the questionnaire, and the organization´s identity is well-protected. Using this maturity model it is possible to assess and benchmark the maturity in the project management capabilities of private companies, not-for-profit, and governmental organizations that are under direct or indirect administration.

The Prado-MMGP has been used in Brazil since 2005 in a country wide research. The overall average Brazilian results obtained in 2012 research are (435 participants):

MATURITY 
Brazilian Average Maturity: 2.60 (scale 1 to 5)

RESULTS INDICATORS

Success Index

  • Average Total Success: 49,7%
  • Average Partial Success: 35,2%
  • Average Failure: 15,1%

Average Delay: 28%
Average Cost overrun: 15%

 

 

PM maturity in project-driven versus project-dependent enterprises

 

Project-driven enterprises[4] typically have higher PM maturity levels than project-dependent organizations because the former´s very existence depends of selecting the right projects and executing them effectively and efficiently. Excellent project management is vital to the future of these project-driven enterprises, which include architect/engineer/constructor, general contractor, and specialty contractor firms; information technology and communications firms who sell and install their products and services on a contract basis; and consultants and other professional services firms.

 

Research shows (see Debourse and Archibald 2011[5]) that most CEOs of those enterprises have held project manager positions during their careers. Project-dependent enterprises (all others who sell their goods and services on the open market and usually depend on projects for new products and services) are often less mature in their project management capabilities because the importance of the PM discipline is not widely recognized by their senior executives[6], and few of their CEOs or other senior executives have managed projects or programs during their careers.

 

Many executives and management gurus fail to recognize project management as a core competence for essentially all human enterprises

 

In spite of the widespread global development and use of project, program, and portfolio management (PPPM) concepts, and their importance in achieving significant innovations and in implementing key corporate strategies[7], Nieto-Rodriguez[8] reports that this competence is ignored by senior executives in project-dependent enterprises, by business management gurus, and by most top MBA programs, and is discounted as a topic by the finest business publications.

 

 

We believe that every organization that has important projects and programs under way will derive substantial benefits from initiating an effort to measure their project management maturity, benchmark themselves against their competitors and others, and determine where to initiate improvements in these important capabilities. This maturity assessment effort will be useful to communicate more effectively with their senior corporate executives and others about the importance of PPPM as a core competence.

 

[1] The Project Management Maturity series of articles by Russell Archibald & Prof Darci Prado is based on their extensive research on this topic in Brazil, the United States and other countries.  Russ is one of the pioneers in the project management field and the originator of the Archibald Project Categorization Model.  Darci is the developer of the Prado Project Management Maturity Model which has been successfully implemented by many organizations in Brazil.  More about this model and related research can be found at http://www.maturityresearch.com/.

[2] Archibald, Russell D. and Shane Archibald, Leading and Managing Innovation: What Every Executive Team Must Know About Project, Program & Portfolio Management, pp. 87-88, Infinity 2013.

[3] Kerzner, H., Strategic Planning for Project Management Using a Project Management Maturity Model, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2001, p.1-40.

[4] Archibald, Russell D. and Shane Archibald, Leading and Managing Innovation: What Every Executive Team Must Know About Project, Program & Portfolio Management, pp. 20-21, Infinity 2013.

[5] Debourse, Jean-Pierre and Russell D. Archibald, Project Managers as Senior Executives, Project Management Institute, 2011.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Archibald, Russell D., "Leading and Managing Innovation," presented at the Project Zone Germany Congress, 18-19 March 2013, Frankfurt. http://russarchibald.com/recent-papers-presentations/innovation-projec-manage/innovation-pmifc/

[8] Nieto-Rodriguez, Antonio, "Evidence of the Neglect of Project Management by Senior Executives." PM World Journal, Vol. II, Issue II - February 2013 www.pmworldjournal.net

This article has been  published by PM World Journal at http://pmworldjournal.net/

About the Authors

Russell D. Archibald

 

San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

 

 

Russell D. Archibald: PhD (Hon) ESC-Lille (Fr), MSc (U of Texas) & BS (U of Missouri) Mechanical Engineering, PMP, Fellow PMI and Honorary Fellow APM/IPMA (member of the Board of IPMA/INTERNET 1974-83), held engineering and executive positions in aerospace, petroleum, telecommunications, and automotive industries in the USA, France, Mexico and Venezuela (1948-1982). Russ also had 9 years of active duty as a pilot officer with the U.S. Army Air Corps (1943-46) and as a Senior Pilot and Project Engineer with the U. S. Air Force (1951-58.) Since 1982 he has consulted to companies, agencies and development banks in 16 countries on 4 continents, and has taught project management principles and practices to thousands of managers and specialists around the world. He is co-author (with Shane Archibald) of Leading and Managing Innovation: What Every Executive Team Must Know About Project, Program, and Portfolio Management (2013); author of Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects (3rd Edition 2003), also published in Russian, Italian, and Chinese; other books (in English, Italian, Japanese, and Hungarian); and many papers on project management. Web-site: http://russarchibald.com  E-mail: Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.  

 

Darci Prado, PhD

 

Minas Gerais, Brazil

 

Darci Prado is a consultant and partner of INDG in Brazil. He is an engineer, with graduate studies in Economical Engineering at UCMG and PhD in Project Management from UNICAMP, Brazil. He has worked for IBM for 25 years and with UFMG Engineering School for 32 years. He holds the IPMA Level B Certification. He was one of the founders of Minas Gerais State and Parana State PMI chapters, and he was member of Board Directors of Minas Gerais State PMI chapter during 1998-2002 and member of the Consulting Board during 2003-2009. He was also the president of IPMA Minas Gerais State chapter during 2006-2008. He is conducting a Project Management maturity research in Brazil, Italy, Spain and Portugal together with Russell Archibald. He is author of nine books on project management and is also author of a methodology, a software application, and a maturity model for project management.  Darci can be contacted at Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.

 

Maturity in Project Management Series[1]

By Russell D. Archibald & Darci Prado

This is the second of a series of articles on PPPMM.

The Importance of Knowing Your Project, Program, and Portfolio Management Maturity: PPPMM

The world today depends on projects: almost a third of the world economy is generated through projects [1]. For many organizations, projects ensure their future and allow them to survive and grow. Projects can be seen in the construction of a new factory to launch a new product, the restructuring of a recently acquired company, the development and implementation of a computerized application, and achievement of many other strategic objectives. A thorough analysis of the world scene shows that failures to plan and execute projects properly have serious negative impacts on business results. For example, a study by the Standish Group [2], which has analyzed the efficiency of management of software projects in the U.S. since 1994, shows that the project success rate today in this area is still very low: 37%.

 

"In every kind of organization - governmental, institutional and industrial - there is a growing recognition that, although there are many projects within the organization, they are often poorly understood and  inadequately managed" - Archibald [3]

 

The world is becoming globalized and we are living in an era of great change, and the execution of complex and large projects has become common. For a growing number of organizations, the challenge is how to manage their projects and programs successfully. But ultimately, what is success? Certainly, the concept of project success is naturally understood in each department of organizations where the subject is practiced. However, conceptualizing success in project management, in a generic form that can be widely accepted, is not easy because this science has been applied in various human activities and traits that create significant differences. The following statement is not intended to be theoretically accurate in every respect and with comprehensive application without question, but is suitable for the purposes of this introductory text:

 

A successful project is one that hits the target.
This usually means it was completed and produced the expected results and benefits, and key stakeholders were fully satisfied.
Moreover, it is expected that the project has been completed within the requirements for schedule, cost, scope and quality (small differences can be accepted, depending on the type of project).

Project/Program/Portfolio Management Maturity

The concept of maturity is quite intuitive and has applications in many aspects of our day-to-day lives. In the case of project management, maturity is linked to how well an organization is able to manage their projects. The issue came into vogue rather recently, but it already occupies a prominent place: numerous articles have appeared in journals, lectures are given covering the subject, and graduate students choose the theme for their completion of course work or master´s thesis. After all, why so much interest in the topic? Of course it is inherent in the fact that organizations and processes evolve and mature, and that there is an intuitive relationship between maturity and success. In the case of Project Management (PM), several research studies [5,6,7,8] made in recent years have shown that maturity and success really go together. Figure 1 shows the results of these studies [3] for projects in the category New Product Development.

Certainly the curve in Figure 1 has different formats for different categories of project, as we shall show in other articles of this series and in the site www.maturityresearch.com. The categories that are usually considered when measuring maturity in their management are (Archibald, pp 35-36 [3]):

  • Projects for Defense, Security and Aerospace
  • Projects for Improvements of Productivity or Quality for obtaining better operating results; Organizational Changes Projects.
  • Communication Systems Projects (Voice, data and image)
  • Event Projects
  • Engineering Design Projects, Architecture Projects, etc.
  • Projects Ventures, Investments, Buildings and Facilities Constructions
  • Information Systems Projects (software)
  • Regional and International Development Projects
  • Media & Entertainment Projects
  • New Product or Service Development Projects
  • Research and Development Projects

Figure 1. Levels of Maturity and Project Success.

Figure 1 shows, for example, that organizations at Level 1 have a success rate of 60%, or 60% of its new product launches are successful. Another interpretation for the same graph is that if an organization is at level 4, there is an expectation that their level of success is 80%. This matter will be raised below in the section titled Maturity and Success, but for now we can say that, for other categories of projects, Figure 1 acquires different formats. We can also add that the different curves for different categories of projects have the following features in common:

  • As level 5 is reached, the success rate approaches 100%;
  • As level 4 is reached, the success rate is around 80%.

 

We believe that these statements are valid regardless of the specific maturity model that has been used to determine the maturity level of a given organization, although our direct experience has been with application of the Prado PPPM Model (www.maturityresearch.com.)

What is a Project/Program/Portfolio Management Maturity Model?

A PPPM maturity model is a mechanism to numerically quantify the ability of an organization to manage projects, programs, and portfolios successfully. In addition, it is expected of a model of maturity in project management that it is able to assist in the establishment of a maturity growth (or improvement) plan for the organization for each pertinent category of projects. For a general discussion of such models please see the first article in this series, "Introduction to Maturity in Project Management," in the PM World Journal, Vol. III, Issue I - January, "Benefits of Achieving Greater Maturity In PPPMM."

Referring back to Figure 1 and the studies cited above, we can draw an important conclusion:

No matter the category of projects executed in your department: if the current project management maturity is above 4, the level of project success will likely be above 80%.

Today a success equal to or greater than 80%, for most categories of projects, is very good indeed!! It's the dream of almost all offices that manage projects in organizations.

 

Just refer to the current situation of the companies that plan and execute projects around the world: it will be seen that, in many if not most organizations (with the possible exception of the top-level global engineering/construction companies), the average values of success are well below this threshold and therefore the results are reputation and financial damage, loss of market share, low competitiveness, dissatisfied customers, stress, etc. As can be seen on the website www.maturityresearch.com [8], the average maturity of 434 Brazilian organizations in 2012 was 2.60 on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is no good and 5 means the achievement of excellence.

A greater maturity in PPPM provides shortest time, and greater adherence to the expected costs and delivery of the results (outcomes) that are expected. Figure 2 shows a generic example of the benefits obtained by maturity level evolution regarding the management (planning and execution) of the time aspect. This figure just gives an idea about the evolution of a department of an organization that always executes projects. The values in the figure represent fictitious averages of planning and real execution times, on a hypothetical portfolio of projects. Similar arrangements could be built for cost, scope and quality. Increasing this understanding, the organization that has evolved into optimized project management capability would be better able to perform each year a greater number of projects with greater project success.     

Figure 2: Evolution in maturity levels and reductions in execution time of a project.
 

The Evolution of PPPM Maturity

All these aspects are being given a great deal of scrutiny lately, as companies are increasingly aware of the importance of projects to implement their strategies, and there is a greater awareness of the value of good management to achieve excellence. A finding is gaining importance in recent years: organizations need to mature in the science and art of project management (or rather the practice of project management), as Dr. Harold Kerzner has stated[4]:

 

"Considering the fact that many executives today see their organizations as a set of projects, we have that project management permeates the entire organization and evolution of maturity is required. So all those companies who wish to stay in business and become competitive should pursue maturity. The other option is not very pleasant". [4]

If an organization has identified opportunities and threats that imply the need for change (whether for innovations or new developments or operational improvements, etc.), such changes inevitably will point to new projects. Moreover, if there is a real dissatisfaction with the current level of success in implementing these types of projects, they should first make an assessment of maturity. If it is determined that its value is below 4 (which is very likely), it is important to have a growth plan to reach level 4, as shown in Figure 3.

 

Figure 3: Evolution toward the ideal situation.
 

Higher PPPM Provides a Competitive Advantage

To reach levels of excellence it is necessary to spend much time and effort. According to Kerzner [4], organizations spend up to 7 years to reach level 5, starting from the initial level. However, when they reach the level of excellence, organizations not only have this competitive advantage (competence), but also they are sure that other competing organizations that have not invested time and effort at the right time will face a long time to reach them.

There is another equally important aspect: there are very few organizations in the levels of excellence 4 and 5 as seen in Figure 4, which shows that only 9.9% of the 434 organizations that participated in the survey in Brazil in 2012 have achieved standards of excellence [8]. As shown in Figure 5, Brazil has the 7th largest economy in the world.

Companies with high competence in executing projects take greater risks. Eventually accepting risky challenges can lead to failure, but by accepting challenges that other companies usually do not dare, when they can achieve success they also get a fantastic competitive factor for that product: out in front of all others.

The above findings are very important and should be carefully evaluated by the reader. Surely this is one of the important strategies that organizations will pursue in the coming year: to increase their project/program/portfolio management maturity.


Figure 4: In 2012, only 9.9% of Brazilian organizations were at levels 4 and 5 [8].

 

RankCountry/RegionGDP (Millions of $US)
World   72,689,734
1 United States 16,244,600
2 China 8,358,400
3 Japan 5,960,180
4 Germany 3,425,956
5 France 2,611,221
6 United Kingdom 2,417,600
7 Brazil 2,254,109
8 Russia 2,029,812
9 Italy 2,013,392
10 India 1,875,213
11 Canada 1,821,445

Figure 5. 2012 GDP of the Top 11 Countries (Source: Wikipedia)

 

References

  1. Turner, R. - The Nine Schools of Project Management. In: Special Eden Doctoral Seminar - ESC-Lille. Proceedings ..., Lille (France): 2008.
  2.  Standish Group, The Chaos Report on Project Management, 2011, available in https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/chaos_report_1994.pdf .
  3. Archibald, R., Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 2003, USA, John Wiley & Sons, 396p.
  4. Kerzner, H., PM Network - February 2006 - p. 32
  5. Stevens, SN, The Six Step Process for Change Project Management in High-Tech Organizations, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Project Management Institute - USA - 1998.
  6. IBBS, C. W., Measuring the Strategic Value of Project Management, Impresario of the Construction Industry Symposium, 2002
  7. PMI-RJ, Benchmarking Study - Project Management 2010 - Brazil, RJ PMI Section
  8. MPCM, General Report: 2012 Brazil Maturity, www.maturityresearch.com
 

[1] The Project Management Maturity series of articles by Russell Archibald & Prof Darci Prado is based on their extensive research on this topic in Brazil, the United States and other countries.  Russ is one of the pioneers in the project management field and the originator of the Archibald Project Categorization Model.  Darci is the developer of the Prado Project Management Maturity Model which has been successfully implemented by many organizations in Brazil.  More about this model and related research can be found at http://www.maturityresearch.com/.

 

This article has been  published by PM World Journal at http://pmworldjournal.net/

About the Authors

Russell D. Archibald

 

San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

 

 

Russell D. Archibald: PhD (Hon) ESC-Lille (Fr), MSc (U of Texas) & BS (U of Missouri) Mechanical Engineering, PMP, Fellow PMI and Honorary Fellow APM/IPMA (member of the Board of IPMA/INTERNET 1974-83), held engineering and executive positions in aerospace, petroleum, telecommunications, and automotive industries in the USA, France, Mexico and Venezuela (1948-1982). Russ also had 9 years of active duty as a pilot officer with the U.S. Army Air Corps (1943-46) and as a Senior Pilot and Project Engineer with the U. S. Air Force (1951-58.) Since 1982 he has consulted to companies, agencies and development banks in 16 countries on 4 continents, and has taught project management principles and practices to thousands of managers and specialists around the world. He is co-author (with Shane Archibald) of Leading and Managing Innovation: What Every Executive Team Must Know About Project, Program, and Portfolio Management (2013); author of Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects (3rd Edition 2003), also published in Russian, Italian, and Chinese; other books (in English, Italian, Japanese, and Hungarian); and many papers on project management. Web-site: http://russarchibald.com  E-mail: Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.  

 

Darci Prado, PhD

 

Minas Gerais, Brazil

 

Darci Prado is a consultant and partner of INDG in Brazil. He is an engineer, with graduate studies in Economical Engineering at UCMG and PhD in Project Management from UNICAMP, Brazil. He has worked for IBM for 25 years and with UFMG Engineering School for 32 years. He holds the IPMA Level B Certification. He was one of the founders of Minas Gerais State and Parana State PMI chapters, and he was member of Board Directors of Minas Gerais State PMI chapter during 1998-2002 and member of the Consulting Board during 2003-2009. He was also the president of IPMA Minas Gerais State chapter during 2006-2008. He is conducting a Project Management maturity research in Brazil, Italy, Spain and Portugal together with Russell Archibald. He is author of nine books on project management and is also author of a methodology, a software application, and a maturity model for project management.  Darci can be contacted at Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.

 

Maturity in Project Management Series[1]

By Russell D. Archibald & Darci Prado

This is the third of a series of articles on PPPMM.

Foundations of the Prado-PM Maturity Model

The Prado-PM Maturity Model (Prado-PMMM) was launched in December 2002 and reflects forty years of experience on the subject by Darci Prado within IBM and two large, Brazilian international consulting firms: INDG and FALCONI. The initial goal was to create a simple and easy to use model that provides reliable results. Since 2002 it has been used by hundreds of Brazilian organizations and others in Italy, Spain, Portugal and the USA, and the results obtained are consistent with expectations, and with what have been obtained with a thorough, much more lengthy diagnosis. This model has also been used since 2005 in a maturity survey conducted in Brazil by Darci Prado and Russell Archibald [1]. This same survey was conducted in Italy in 2010.

1 - Focus of the Model: Departmental

The Prado-PMMM model should be applied to individual departments of an organization, such as engineering, information technology, product development, etc. So it is a departmental model and not a "organizational type model" in which the focus is on the organization as a whole.

In departments that the model is applied there usually exists a portfolio of projects whose content is renewed periodically (typically annually), and where we usually have a PMO (Project Management Office). The projects in this portfolio are usually linked to the mission of the department, such as in the following examples:

  • The department of engineering, construction and installation of a mining company with the charge of planning and implementing the expansion or improvements in the field equipment and facilities of the company;
  • The computer department of a bank, tasked to develop, acquire and install computer applications across the enterprise;
  • The Research & Development department of a steel industry, tasked with creating new uses for the company's products;
  • The New Product Development department of a beverage company, in charge of developing new products for the company;
  • A department of a large real estate construction company in charge of residential and commercial building construction in a particular city;
  • A projectized department of a food factory, in charge of designing and building a new plant (green-field).

Thus, the Prado-PMMM model should be applied separately to each department of the same organization. Then we can typically find a situation in which an organization has departments with different levels of maturity. Eventually, it may happen that an organization is at level 2 in the computer department, at level 3 in engineering and at level 4 in the development of new products department. Repeating:

The Prado-PMMM should be applied separately

within each department of one organization.

It remains to add that the model was designed to be universal, ie, it must work well for any type of organization and any category of projects.

2 - Basic Characteristics of the Model: Results Orientation

The model was created to honor the practice, or rather the practical experience and results achievement. It is currently in version 2, and since its inception the model has gone through successive cycles of continuous improvement. Throughout its evolution the author always tried to align its content with the thoughts of leading world authorities in management. Two of them were of fundamental importance:

 

"Management is not a science, it is not an art; it is a practice, like medicine"

Peter Drucker [2].

 

Peter Drucker is considered the father of modern management and its teachings are used by professionals around the world. He wrote 30 revolutionary books on the topic. Drucker sought, identified and examined the most important issues confronting managers, from corporate strategy to management style and social changes.

 

"To manage is to reach targets"

Vicente Falconi [3].

Vicente Falconi is a respected Brazilian consultant, founder of the consulting firm Falconi that has provided services to hundreds of Brazilian organizations and also has global operations. It is recognized by the American Society for Quality as "One of the 21 voices of the 21st Century." He has published six books in the field of Business Management which have sold over a million of copies.

The expected consequence of this results oriented characteristic is that high performance departments should obtain high levels of maturity; or, on the other hand, a high maturity value department should also have a high performance. This is shown in Figure 1.

This aspect has already been tested in several studies and surveys made ??in Brazil. As we shall see in later articles in this series, the research conducted in Brazil by the site www.maturityresearch.com [1] using this model allowed carrying crosses that showed that:

  • There is a positive relationship between maturity and overall success;
  • There is a negative relationship between maturity and failure;
  • There is a negative relationship between maturity and delay;
  • There is a negative relationship between maturity and overrun costs;
  • This is a positive relationship between maturity and the perception, by senior management, of PM value addition.

Figure 1. Maturity and Success expected relationship.

3 - Guidelines Used in Model Creation

The model was built to reflect how good project management is within a particular department. We believe that the implementation of an efficient management approach that is capable of evolution needs to be supported on solid principles. Or put in other words, that to assure that the governance of projects always evolves all of the following are necessary:

1. Existence and use of best practices for PM;

2. Eliminating the causes of anomalies;

3. Continuous Improvement;

4. Continuous technological and processes innovation.

5. Sustainability.

Each of these five topics is discussed in the following sections. However, these principles are not applied at full strength at all times of the evolution, as we will see later in the description of maturity levels.

3.1 - Use of Good PM Practices

The main guideline used to create the content of the model is that it should be aligned with the best practices of PM. Knowledge of Portfolio, Program and Project Management that is used to create good PM practices, is presented in books from several authors and in standards from organizations such as PMI, IPMA, OGC, ISO, etc. Of course, there must be a documentation of those practices, but it is also necessary that they be used and improved. An inert set of existing rules in a binder, a methodology or software installed on the computer network, books but not actually used does not constitute a set of good practices because they were not continually used by the main stakeholders and improved to overcome the of day-to day difficulties. It is with the maturation of the practices that arise good practices and then we have a good governance.

"It is said that there is good governance in a given scenario when the right decisions are taken at the right time by the right person, producing the right and expected results". [4]

In general, the above standards address aspects such as processes, flows, organizational structure, etc. For example, Figure 2 shows the processes and areas of knowledge according to PMI PMBOK standard [5].

Figure 2. Processes and knowledge areas according to the PMBOK [5].

The use of good practices was used in the creation of level 3 of the maturity model.

3.2 - Elimination of Causes of Anomalies

We understand that the PM good practices of a department are those that produce results. To get good results all the time is not easy since there are several factors that contribute to failure. To ensure the best outcome indicators, there should be an effort to prevent anomalies from occurring, and this is crucial for the evolution to maturity level 4. To do so, you must:

  • Collect data from project performance (success, delay, cost overrun, adherence to initial scope, etc.);
  • Analyze the data (Pareto, etc.);
  • Identify the main causes of anomalies;
  • Eliminate (or mitigate) the manageable causes.
3.3 - Continuous Improvement

As we said earlier, it is from the maturation of the practices that arise good practices and we move forward to have good project governance. The establishment of continuous improvement rituals contributes to improve and optimize practices, involving both processes and products.

This criterion was used to construct maturity levels 4 and 5.

3.4 - Technological and Process Innovation

Another key aspect for the evolution is innovation, especially if you want to reach maturity level 5. It is through innovation that occur great leaps in productivity allowing optimization of products and processes.

3.5 - Sustainability

The questions of the questionnaire model require that, after implementing some aspect of management, the new scenario should practiced by all concerned for a minimum period of time before it is accepted as being consolidated. The time spans are as follows:

Level

Time Span

2

Duration 12 months

3

Duration 12 months

4

Duration 24 months

5

Duration 24 months

For example, consider the question of methodology from level 3. Not only initially implementing a methodology would be considered as having a methodology in place. For that occur, the methodology should be in routine use by the leading players for at least 12 months.

4 - Scope of the Model

Initially we must inform you that the model was created to cover finalistics processes and not only the processes of project management. On the other hand, we said earlier that one of the guidelines of the model is to identify and eliminate (or mitigate) the offenders to success. To achieve this result we must act both on finalistics processes and support processes.

4.1 - Finalistics Processess

The forty questionnaire questions that are at the core of the maturity model address the entire cycle of product creation (good, service, or result), ie the Finalistics Processes. One might also call them `deliverables processes.´ These processes take on particular characteristics depending on the origin of the project portfolio, which also links to the type of organization, as well as the nature of the good, service or result to be delivered. Thus, as shown in Figure 3, the projects can originate from the following sources:

  • Strategic Planning;
  • Interaction with customers.

 

Figure 3: Finalistics Processes.

The processes shown in Figure 3 are called finalistics because they are directly related to obtaining the final product (good, service or result). The Prado-PMMM model includes both options of Figure 3, which incorporates:

  • Strategic Management
  • Portfolio Management
  • Program Management
  • Project Management
  • Transfer to usage of the project results

The model devotes close attention to the implementation stage, as shown in Figure 3. It is in this stage that we have Project Management, consisting of (Figure 4):

  • Product Management (or Technical Management)
  • Work Management (in which there is applied PM knowledge, as provided in PMBOK). PMI calls this part Project Management.

The model addresses both aspects and dedicates a strong emphasis on Work Management.

Figure 4: Components of Project Management

4.2 - Support Processes

The model was designed to have a close link with success and, for this, several questions in the questionnaire are to determine whether the causes of anomalies were identified and eliminated or mitigated. The anomalies can be located at various points of both the Finalistics Processes and the Support ones. In Figure 5 we show a hypothetical example of areas that provide services to finalistics processes, in the case of a portfolio derived from Strategic Planning. We call the processes performed by these areas as Support Processes. These areas are also called interfaces.

The work in the interfaces in order to eliminate anomalies generally is not a function of the team involved with the project management (for instance, PMO). But it is the responsibility of this team to point out the interface areas that are negatively acting on the success of projects

Figure 5: Anomalies elimination: finalistics processes and support processes

5 - Model Internals: Dimensions and Levels

The model proposes that there are five levels and seven dimensions for maturity assessment. Each level can contain up to seven dimensions of maturity at different intensities and peculiarities

5.1 - Dimensions

The seven dimensions are the following:

  • Competence in Project and Program Management
  • Competence in Technical and Contextual Aspects
  • Behavioral Competence
  • Methodology usage
  • Computerization
  • Usage of the convenient Organizational Structure
  • Strategic Alignment

The seven dimensions form the PM Platform (Figure 6):

Figure 6: The Seven Dimensions of Maturity (PM Platform).

Project and Program Management Competence:

The key people involved with project management must be competent (knowledge + experience) on aspects of project management, such as, for example, presented in the PMI PMBOK manual or the ICB IPMA manual. The required level of competence depends on the function performed by each one.

Technical and Contextual Competence:

The key people involved with project management must be competent (knowledge + experience) in technical aspects of the product (good, service or result) being created, as well as on aspects of the organization (finance, its productive/ distributive model, its business, etc.). The required level of competence depends on the function performed by each one.

Behavioral Competence:

The key people involved with project management must be competent (knowledge + experience) on behavioral aspects (leadership, organization, motivation, negotiation, etc.). The required level of competence depends on the function performed by each one.

Methodology Usage

There should be a suitable project management methodology that involves the entire cycle that needs to be followed. Eventually this means not only the Implementation phase, but also the Business Case phase.

Computerization

The relevant aspects of the methodology should be computerized and the system must be easy to use and allow for making the right decisions at the right time. Eventually the whole cycle that starts at the idea or need should be computerized.

Strategic Alignment

The projects implemented in the department should be in full alignment with the organization's strategies. The processes in question (portfolio management) should be executed with quality and necessary agility. There should be computerized tools and an appropriate organizational structure.

Organizational Structure

A suitable organizational structure must be used, both for the Business Case stage and for the Implementation stage. For the case of the Implementation stage, this structure usually involves project managers, PMO, sponsor and committees. The Organizational Structure shall define functions and rules, and also regulate the relationship of authority and power between project managers and the various areas of the organization involved with projects. 

5.2 - Levels of Maturity

The five levels of maturity are the following:

  • Level 1 - Initial (ad hoc)
  • Level 2 - Known
  • Level 3 - Standardized
  • Level 4 - Managed
  • Level 5 - Optimized

Level 1:

The company does not have a correct perception of what projects and project management are. Projects are executed on the basis of intuition, "goodwill" or "best individual effort". Usually there is no planning, and control is always nonexistent. There are no standardized procedures. The success is the result of individual effort or luck. 

Level 2:

This level represents the awakening to the subject of PM. Its main features are:

  • Introductory knowledge of Project Management.
  • Introductory use of tools (software) for activities sequencing.
  • Isolated initiatives for planning and control of some projects.
  • Each professional works in its own way, as the consequence of the lack of a standardized platform for PM, consisting of processes, tools, organizational structure, etc.
  • Is the awakening of an awareness of the importance of implementing each of the components of a project management platform.

Level 3:

This level represents the situation where a PM platform has been implemented. Its main features are:

  • Existence of a standardized platform for PM (see Figure 6 above).
  • The platform is in use by the leading players for over one year.
  • Use of baseline and performance measurement.
  • Data capture of anomalies that impact project results (delays, cost overruns, etc.).
  • Evolution in skills.

Level 4:

This level represents the situation where the PM platform really works and gives results. Its main features are:

  • Elimination (or mitigation) of manageable anomalies that hinder project outcomes.
  • Professionals consistently demonstrate a high level of competence.
  • The results of the area (success rate, delay, etc.) are consistent with that expected for the maturity level 4.

Level 5:

This level represents the situation in which the PM platform not only works and gives results as was also optimized by the practice of continuous improvement and technological and processes innovation. Its main features are:

  • Optimization of processes and tools.
  • Optimization of results (time, cost, scope, quality, performance, etc.).
  • Highest level of success.
  • Efficiency in the environment and work climate, high productivity and low stress.
  • High recognition of the competence of the area, which is seen as a benchmark.

6 - Model Components

The model consists of a questionnaire and guidelines to make a diagnosis and create a plan for growth, as shown in Figure 7. All necessary information can be found in the book "Maturity in Project Management" [5]. This book is the second edition and also has an edition in Italian. There are plans to publish the book in English.

 

 

Figure 7: Components of Prado-PMMM model.

The most visible part of the model is a questionnaire with 40 questions[2], but the following components are equally important:

  • Guidelines to make a Diagnosis;
  • Guidelines to create a Growing (or Improvement) Plan.

The Diagnosis allows deepening the understanding of the current status and the causes of weaknesses found within the department. It is critical for booting the other component: Growth Plan.

Guidelines to mount the Growth Plan are created to address the desired evolution in maturity as a project, with all the peculiarities that such a project has, together with those of its management.

7 - The PM Maturity Research

As previously stated, a PM maturity survey has been conducted since 2005 in Brazil by the site www.maturityresearch.com site, coordinated by Darci Prado and Russell Archibald. In this research the participant responds to two separate and independent questionnaires:

  • Questionnaire (40 questions) for maturity evaluation:
  • Questionnaire (28 questions) to identify the characteristics of the organization and inform the assessor about the department project performance indicators (project and product success, delays, cost overrun, scope adherence, etc.)[3].

In the evaluation of the research results there is a cross between the responses of the two questionnaires. In the future articles of this series, we will provide an analysis of such results. By way of introduction to the topic, we show below a summary of key indicators obtained in the 2012 survey which included 434 organizations and 8,680 projects:

Maturity:

  • Maturity(overall average): 2.60 (scale 1 to 5)

Performance Indicators (overall averages):

  • Success Index:
    • Total Success: 49.7%
    • Partial Success: 35.2%
    • Failure: 15.1%
  • Delay: 28%
  • Cost Overrun: 15%

It is important to make the point that the research has shown that there is a strong relationship between maturity and success, i.e., the more mature the area is in the use of good PM practice, the better their performance indicators will be.

8 - Conclusions

We saw that the Prado-PMMM model is supported by strong fundamentals of management. It is easy to use and to interpret its results. Its usage in the maturity survey in Brazil since 2005 has demonstrated that the model is a reliable tool for evaluating the maturity and to make a realistic plan for growth in a department of an organization.

References

  1. www.maturityresearch.com
  2. Drucker, P. Movie Peter Drucker - An Intelectual Journey, HSM Management
  3. Falconi, V. The True Power, Nova Lima, Editora Falconi, 2012, 140p.
  4. Adnams, S, Governança: Chegou a hora de desmistificar o conceito. Available in . Accessed in 31-March-2010
  5. Project Management Institute, Standards Committee, A Guide To The Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th Edition, 2012, PMI, USA, 285p.
  6. Prado, D. Maturidade em Gerenciamento de Projetos, 2nd Edition, Nova Lima, Editora Falconi, 2010, 210p.

 

 

 

[1] The Project Management Maturity series of articles by Russell Archibald & Prof Darci Prado is based on their extensive research on this topic in Brazil, the United States and other countries.  Russ is one of the pioneers in the project management field and the originator of the Archibald Project Categorization Model.  Darci is the developer of the Prado Project Management Maturity Model which has been successfully implemented by many organizations in Brazil.  More about this model and related research can be found at http://www.maturityresearch.com/.

 

[2] There are 10 questions for each maturity level from Level 2 to 5. The questions can be found on the site www.maturityresearch.com by going to INFORMATION in the left side menu and then DOWNLOADS.

[3] These 28 questions can be found on the site www.maturityresearch.com by registering and then clicking on the "Start Evaluation" button. You can read all questions in both questionnaires there without actually giving answers to the questions. The corporate identity of organizations is not revealed in the study results.

 

This article has been  published by PM World Journal at http://pmworldjournal.net/

About the Authors

Russell D. Archibald

 

San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

 

 

Russell D. Archibald: PhD (Hon) ESC-Lille (Fr), MSc (U of Texas) & BS (U of Missouri) Mechanical Engineering, PMP, Fellow PMI and Honorary Fellow APM/IPMA (member of the Board of IPMA/INTERNET 1974-83), held engineering and executive positions in aerospace, petroleum, telecommunications, and automotive industries in the USA, France, Mexico and Venezuela (1948-1982). Russ also had 9 years of active duty as a pilot officer with the U.S. Army Air Corps (1943-46) and as a Senior Pilot and Project Engineer with the U. S. Air Force (1951-58.) Since 1982 he has consulted to companies, agencies and development banks in 16 countries on 4 continents, and has taught project management principles and practices to thousands of managers and specialists around the world. He is co-author (with Shane Archibald) of Leading and Managing Innovation: What Every Executive Team Must Know About Project, Program, and Portfolio Management (2013); author of Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects (3rd Edition 2003), also published in Russian, Italian, and Chinese; other books (in English, Italian, Japanese, and Hungarian); and many papers on project management. Web-site: http://russarchibald.com  E-mail: Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.  

 

Darci Prado, PhD

 

Minas Gerais, Brazil

 

Darci Prado is a consultant and partner of INDG in Brazil. He is an engineer, with graduate studies in Economical Engineering at UCMG and PhD in Project Management from UNICAMP, Brazil. He has worked for IBM for 25 years and with UFMG Engineering School for 32 years. He holds the IPMA Level B Certification. He was one of the founders of Minas Gerais State and Parana State PMI chapters, and he was member of Board Directors of Minas Gerais State PMI chapter during 1998-2002 and member of the Consulting Board during 2003-2009. He was also the president of IPMA Minas Gerais State chapter during 2006-2008. He is conducting a Project Management maturity research in Brazil, Italy, Spain and Portugal together with Russell Archibald. He is author of nine books on project management and is also author of a methodology, a software application, and a maturity model for project management.  Darci can be contacted at Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.

Maturity in Project Management Series[1]

By Russell D. Archibald & Darci Prado

This is the fourth of a series of articles on PPPMM.

PM Maturity for Project Categories[2]

 

Here we describe the need for systematically categorizing the many different types of projects that exist, discuss a few of the many possible ways to categorize them, and present a widely used project categorization approach that has proven practical for many organizations. That project categorization model has been used since 2005 in the project management (PM) maturity research conducted using the Prado PM Maturity Model in Brazil, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and the United States.

The Need for Categorizing Projects and Programs

Significant differences exist between the many projects within:

  • The total spectrum of actual projects that exist in the worlds of government, business and industry, and
  • The smaller numbers of different kinds of projects that are being planned and executed within one organizational entity or enterprise.

Practical experience over many decades in creating and managing the many types (or categories) of projects that exist has led to:

  • Recognition that the diversity inherent within the many existing and potential projects demands that projects be segregated in several ways for several purposes, to continue to improve the ways in which both the buyers (owners) and sellers (contractors or developers) manage specific projects.
  • Recognition, definition and understanding of the project management (PM) principles and practices common to all (or at least many) projects in all types of human endeavors and organizations, as documented in the several PM bodies of knowledge and the PM literature in general.

These categorization purposes within an enterprise are to:

  • Strategically and operationally select, authorize, and prioritize their projects.
  • Operationally plan and execute their projects:
  • individually,
  • within programs, and
  • within project portfolios.
  • Measure and benchmark the maturity of the project, program, and portfolio management capabilities within organizations, and implement effective improvements in those capabilities to achieve greater project success, project value, and stakeholder satisfaction.
  • Educate and train the managers and specialists involved in projects and PM.
  • Develop and manage the careers of managers and specialists involved in creating and managing projects, the project management discipline, and its informational tools.

 

Methods of Project Categorization

A number of project attributes that can be used to categorize or classify projects have been identified by Crawford et al (2004), but to date there is not one method or system in use across all industries or governments. Of the many possibilities we present four different approaches here that convey some of the important characteristics of projects and programs.

 

De facto project categorization or specialization

Today, within the PM practices of large and small organizations and within some of the recognized PM bodies of knowledge and standards, we can see de facto categorization of projects for various purposes.

Many PM practitioners report that "our organization does not categorize our projects in any formal way." However, the structure of their organization itself usually creates de facto categorization.

For example, it is common for one company, or one division/department of a larger company, to be devoted only to IT hardware (new product development) and/or software projects, which are in themselves important project categories.

The larger facilities engineering/construction companies often create operating divisions devoted to sub-categories of projects such as energy plants, commercial structures, high-rise buildings, dams, and transportation (highways, bridges, etc.). Many companies or government agencies are devoted to only one or a few categories of projects. Movement toward broader recognition that one PM standard does not fit all projects is demonstrated by the production of various standards in recent years within both the Project Management Institute /PMI® and some of the 58 national associations that are members of the International Project Management Association/IPMA.

For example, the top five areas of PM application/industries represented by the 439,677 members (as of February 2014) of PMI in 120 countries are "computers/software/data processing, information technology, telecommunications, business management, and financial services" (PMI Corporate Council Update March 2003, p 3, the latest published data available for these categories), even though the facilities construction and aerospace/defense industries are the most mature PM areas of application in most countries.

A systematic approach to project categorization is necessary to achieve the most effective PM success and to accelerate the development of and improvements in the PM discipline. Research (see Crawford et al 2004 and Archibald 2007) shows that there are many characteristics and attributes of projects that can be used, and in fact are being used, to categorize and/or classify projects. There are also many purposes and uses of the various categorizations. Four of those approaches are briefly discussed here.

Strategic categorization by market share and strategic intent

One method (Fern 2004) for categorizing projects according to market share and strategic intent combines the Boston Consulting Group´s well-known matrix (Figure 1, relating product or service market share with market growth) and Hammel and Prahalad´s (1989) theory that products are developed to conform to the requirements of one of three strategic intents: technological excellence, operational excellence, or customer intimacy. 

This method of project categorization is useful when allocating limited resources and prioritizing projects that are competing for those common resources, including funding, skilled people, and specialized facilities and equipment.

Figure 1. The Boston Matrix.

Project categorization by scope and technology

Shenhar et al (1996) provide an excellent examination and discussion of attributes that can be used to classify projects from the perspective of relationships between project scope and technology content and uncertainty, as shown in Fig. 2.

Categorizing projects in this manner can be useful to determine the qualifications and assigned authority of the project (or program) manager or director, and also the specific project management tools and processes to be used to plan, estimate, assess and manage risks, evaluate, report and control the project.

Figure 2. Relationships between Project Scope and Technology Content and Uncertainty.
Source: Shenhar et al, 1996. Used with permission.

The Project Diamond Model to Distinguish Between Projects

Shenhar (2012) and Shenhar and Dvir (2007) have developed an innovative and useful approach to distinguishing between projects with their Project Diamond Model. This model enables a project to be rated on four axes: complexity, technology, novelty, and pace. Figure 3 shows the four attributes that are used in this model to indicate where a specific project falls on each of these.

 

Figure 3. Using the Project Diamond Model to Distinguish Between Projects.
Source: Shenhar 2012. Used with permission.

 

Figure 4 provides more details used to place a specific project on each axis.

Figure 4. Project Types within the Project Diamond Model

Source: Shenhar 2012. Used with permission.

 

Figure 5. The Impact of the Diamond Dimensions on Project Management.
Source: Shenhar 2012. Used with permission.

 

Figure 5 illustrates the impact of these dimensions on the project management methods required for the project in question. Armed with this knowledge responsible executives can determine the best approach to governing and managing the project.

 

Categorizing by a Project´s Products and/or Other Results: the Archibald Model

From the perspectives of achieving project success and of developing and improving project management capabilities within an enterprise, categorizing projects by end product or results has proven to be useful, because the type of product or service determines the type of work involved and hence the best methodologies for managing the project.

The basic premise is simple: for a project to be successful, different types of project work associated with different types of product need to be managed differently. An experienced engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) project manager will often not be very successful managing a typical information technology (IT) software project. The project management methods and tools that are successful for an EPC facilities project are not very useful for an IT or new product development project.

A proven categorization method based primarily on the project end results is shown in Table 1. Sub-categories are shown for several of the twelve major project categories. For a discussion of the very distinctive project lifecycle models that are used for the various categories in this table see Archibald 2003, pp. 40-49.

Concerning the important Category 5-Facilities, shown in Table 1, even though the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning phases of these projects (which are often called "capital" projects or capital investments) must all be integrated for effective project management, the design and construction phases are often treated as separate project categories when one company performs the engineering design phase and another company carries out the procurement, construction and commissioning phases. This is the case in the research that uses the Prado PM Maturity Model in Brazil and other countries.

 

Table 1.Project categories/sub-categories with each category having similar project life cycle phases and project management processes.
Source: Archibald 2013, p 9.

 

 

Project Categories:

with similar life cycle project management models/processes

 

Examples

  1. Aerospace/Defense Projects
    • Defense systems
    • Space
    • Military operations

 

  • New weapon system; major system upgrade.
  • Satellite development/launch; space station modification.
  • Task force invasion.
  1. Business & Organization Change  Projects
    • Acquisition/Merger
    • Management process improvement
    • New business venture
    • Organization re-structuring
    • Legal proceeding

 

  • Acquire and integrate competing company.
  • Major improvement in project management.
  • Form and launch new company.
  • Consolidate divisions and downsize company.
  • Major litigation case.
  1. Communication Systems

Projects

  • Network communications systems
  • Switching communications systems

 

 

  • Microwave communications network.
  • 4th generation wireless communication system.
  1. Event Projects
    • International events
    • National events

 

  • 2012 Summer Olympic Games; 2014 World Cup Match.
  • 2013 U. S. Super Bowl; 2016 U. S. Political Conventions.
  1. Facilities Projects
    • Facility decommissioning
    • Facility demolition
    • Facility maintenance and modification
    • Facility design-procurement-construction

Civil

Energy

Environmental

High-rise

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

Ships

 

  • Closure of nuclear power station.
  • Demolition of high rise building.
  • Process plant maintenance turnaround.
  • Conversion of plant for new products/markets.

Dam; highway interchange.

Power generation plant; oil/gas pipeline.

Chemical waste cleanup.

40 story office building.

New manufacturing plant.

Shopping center; office building.

New housing sub-division.

Tanker, container, or passenger ship.

  1. Information Systems

(Software) Projects

New project management information system. (Information system hardware is in the product development category.)

  1. International Development Projects
    • Agriculture/rural development
    • Education
    • Health
    • Nutrition
    • Population
    • Small-scale enterprise
    • Infrastructure: energy (oil, gas, coal, power generation and distribution), industrial, telecommunications, transportation, urbanization, water supply and sewage, irrigation)

 

People and process intensive projects in developing countries funded by The World Bank, regional development banks, US AID, UNIDO, other UN, and government agencies; and Capital/civil works intensive projects-often somewhat different from 5. Facility Projects as they may include, as part of the project, creating an organizational entity to operate and maintain the facility, and lending agencies impose their project life cycle and reporting requirements.

  1. Media & Entertainment

Projects

  • Motion picture
  • TV segment
  • Live play or music event

 

 

  • New motion picture.
  • New TV episode.
  • New opera premiere.
  1. Product and Service

Development Projects

  • Information technology hardware
  • Industrial product/process
  • Consumer product/process
  • Pharmaceutical product/process
  • Service (financial, other)

 

 

  • New desk-top computer.
  • New earth-moving machine.
  • New automobile, new food product.
  • New cholesterol-lowering drug.
  • New life insurance/annuity offering.
  1. Research and Development Projects
    • Environmental
    • Industrial
    • Economic development
    • Medical
    • Scientific

 

  • Measure changes in the ozone layer.
  • How to reduce pollutant emission.
  • Determine best crop for sub-Sahara Africa.
  • Test new breast cancer treatment.
  • Determine if life exists on Mars.
  1. Healthcare Projects

Major surgical procedure.

  1. Other Categories?

Disaster recovery, other...

Classifying projects within categories and sub-categories: There is usually a wide range in the size, risk and complexity of projects within each project category or sub-category in large organizations. The project management process for each project category must provide the flexibility to choose the proper level of planning and control for large, complex, high-risk, `new territory´ projects compared to smaller or `old hat´ projects. Therefore it is desirable to further classify projects within categories or sub-categories using some of the attributes identified by Crawford et al (2005), or using some of the following classifying characteristics.


Major and Minor Projects within a Category

Classifying Projects within Categories & Sub-Categories:

  • Major or Minor Projects
    Size (money, scope, duration, etc.);
    relative to organizational size and experience
  • Project Complexity & Risk
    Number of different skills or technologies needed, geography/cultures/languages;
    risks can be financial, technological, political, time pressure, or others
  • Strategic Transformational Programs
    Multiple projects (and programs) that also directly involve on-going operations
  • Mega Projects and Programs
    Major projects on steroids, usually major programs over a number of years

It is useful to identify at least two classes of projects within each category. Some organizations use three or even four classes within a specific category. For purposes of discussion here we will call these major and minor projects, although each organization can probably define more descriptive names for their situation. The distinction between these major and minor classes will be noted in the following definitions.

Major Projects are those whose large size, great complexity and/or higher risks require:

  • Designation of an Executive Project Sponsor;
  • Assignment of a full-time Project (or      Program) Manager or Director;
  • The full application of the complete project management process specified for the particular project category for major projects (all specified forms, approvals, plans, schedules, budgets, controls, reports, frequent project review meetings, with substantial levels of detail in each.)

Minor Projects are those whose size, simplicity and low risk allow:

  • No formal assignment of an Executive Project Sponsor; sponsor role retained within the line organization.
  • One project manager to manage two or more minor projects simultaneously;
  • Less than the full application of the complete project management process for the project category (selected basic forms, approvals, plans, schedules, budgets, controls, reports, less frequent project review meetings, with less detail required in each.)

 

Project Complexity and Risk

The complexity of a project is indicated by the:

  • Diversity inherent in the project objectives and scope.
  • Number of different internal and external organizations involved, which is usually an indication of the number of required specialized skills.
  • Sources and complexity of technology required.
  • Sources of funding.
  • External or internal customer.
  • Degree of customer Involvement in the project.
  • Levels of risk (economic, technical, political, other).

Strategic Transformational Projects and Programs

These innovative projects and programs will obviously be major, complex, and usually high risk endeavors to which the above considerations will apply. These usually include projects as well as ongoing operations.

"Mega" Projects and Programs

Beyond the preceding discussion of programs and projects within an enterprise there is a special class of human endeavors that have been given the name "Mega."

These usually involve both governmental and private enterprises, and typically involve consortiums of large companies. Examples include the Channel Tunnel railroad from London to Calais; each of today´s International Olympic Games events; the design, construction, and commissioning of large industrial complexes with residential cities in previously uninhabited areas of the world; and recovery from large, natural disasters.

Such enormous undertakings, which can last up to 15 to 20 years in some cases, present unique governance and management challenges and are beyond the scope of this discussion.

For an authoritative and useful presentation on this subject we recommend the book Strategic Program Management (Prieto 2008.)

The Major Projects Association was formed in the United Kingdom in 1981 to address the challenges posed by mega projects and programs.

"The purpose of the Major Projects Association is to improve the initiation and delivery of major projects through the interaction of members from all sectors in sharing experience, knowledge and ideas," according to Dr. Martin Barnes CBE, Former Executive Director, Major Projects Association. See www.majorprojects.org for more information.

 

Measuring PM Maturity using the Prado PM Maturity Model and the Archibald Project Categorization Model

The PM maturity research that has been conducted since 2005 by the authors and their extended volunteer teams in several countries has used the Prado PM Maturity Model, described in some detail in the third article in this series, combined with the Archibald categorization model described above, with the exception that Category 5 has been divided into two parts:

5a. Engineering/Architecture Design Projects, and

5b. Facility design/procurement/construction.

The organizations within which the projects, programs, and portfolios exist are identified as being within these four major categories:

  1. Private sector corporations and other companies
  2. Third Sector (NGOs, not-for-profit, etc.)
  3. Government-Indirect Administration
  4. Government-Direct Administration.

These organizations are also identified as operating within these business areas:

  1. Agriculture, Cattle Raising, Silviculture and Forest Exploration
  2. Food and beverages
  3. Banking, finance and insurance
  4. Trading
  5. Construction
  6. Consulting
  7. Defense, Security and Aeronautics
  8. Distribution (Water, gas)
  9. Education
  10. Electronics
  11. Engineering
  12. Electrical Energy (Production and/or Distribution)
  13. Pharmaceutical
  14. Mining
  15. Metallurgy and Steelmaking
  16. Paper and Cellulose
  17. Oil and Gas
  18. Chemical
  19. Refractories, Ceramic and Glass
  20. Health
  21. Information Technology (Hardware & Software)
  22. Telecommunications
  23. Textile
  24. Transportation, Storage & Services, Logistics
  25. Tourism & Sports
  26. Automotive & Automotive Parts
  27. Clothing, Footwear, Fashion and Sports Equipment
  28. Other

In addition, the identification of the organizations participating in this PPPM maturity research includes the organizations´ size, in terms of revenue and number of employees, as well as the average cost of the projects within the project categories being evaluated.

This organizational and project identification information enables the measurement of PM maturity for each of the specific project categories, and benchmarking of the results within both the four major organizational sectors and within each of the 28 business areas. As can been seen in the reports that are available on the maturity web site, a number of cross-referenced comparisons using many of these dimensions have been produced. Within the research web site (http://www.maturityresearch.com/ ) there are many more reports available in the Portuguese language portion than in the other languages shown. Many of these can be reasonably well translated to your language using Google Translate.

In subsequent articles in this series we will present and discuss these research results, together with lessons learned in creating growth and improvement plans for the PM capabilities of these various organizations. Future articles will also discuss the impact of PM maturity on project, program, and portfolio success rates.

 

References

 

Archibald, Russell D., and Shane C. Archibald, Leading & Managing Innovation-What Every Executive Team Must Know about Project, Program, and Portfolio Management, Infinity Publishing, 2013.

 

Archibald, Russell D., "A Global Systems for Categorizing Projects," IPMA Project Perspectives 2013 at http://ipma.ch/assets/re-perspectives_2013.pdf .

 

___________, "The Purposes and Methods of Practical Project Categorization," International Project/Program Management Workshop 5, ESC Lille - Lille Graduate School of Management , Lille, France. August 22 to 26, 2005, modified May 28 2007. Available at http://russarchibald.com/recent-papers-presentations/categorizing-projects/ .

___________, Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

Crawford, Lynn, J. Brian Hobbs, and J. Rodney Turner, Project Categorization Systems: Aligning Capability with Strategy for Better Results, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2004. ISBN 1-930699-3-87. 171 pp.

Fern, Edward, "Strategic Categorization of Projects," 2004. Available at

Hamel, Gary & C. K. Prahalad, "Strategic Intent," Harvard Business Review, May-June 1989.

 

Prieto, Bob, Strategic Program Management, 2008. Construction Management Association of America, McLean, VA USA.

Shenhar, Aaron J., James J. Renier, and R. Max Wideman, "Project Management: From Genesis to Content to Classification, INFORMS Conference, Washington, DC. May, 1996. Available at http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/genesis/background.htm .

Shenhar, Aaron J. and Dov Dvir, Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

Shenhar, Aaron J., "What´s the Next Generation of Project Management," PMI Global Congress 2012 North America, Session # RES01, Vancouver BC, Canada, October 20-23, 2012.

 

 

[1] The Project Management Maturity series of articles by Russell Archibald & Prof Darci Prado is based on their extensive research on this topic in Brazil, the United States and other countries.  Russ is one of the pioneers in the project management field and the originator of the Archibald Project Categorization Model.  Darci is the developer of the Prado Project Management Maturity Model which has been successfully implemented by many organizations in Brazil.  More about this model and related research can be found at http://www.maturityresearch.com/.

 

[2] Adapted from Chapter 3, "Categories and Characteristics of Projects," Leading & Managing Innovation-What Every Executive Team Must Know about Project, Program, and Portfolio Management, by Russell D. and Shane C. Archibald, 2013.

 

This article has been  published by PM World Journal at http://pmworldjournal.net/

About the Authors

Russell D. Archibald

 

San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

 

 

Russell D. Archibald: PhD (Hon) ESC-Lille (Fr), MSc (U of Texas) & BS (U of Missouri) Mechanical Engineering, PMP, Fellow PMI and Honorary Fellow APM/IPMA (member of the Board of IPMA/INTERNET 1974-83), held engineering and executive positions in aerospace, petroleum, telecommunications, and automotive industries in the USA, France, Mexico and Venezuela (1948-1982). Russ also had 9 years of active duty as a pilot officer with the U.S. Army Air Corps (1943-46) and as a Senior Pilot and Project Engineer with the U. S. Air Force (1951-58.) Since 1982 he has consulted to companies, agencies and development banks in 16 countries on 4 continents, and has taught project management principles and practices to thousands of managers and specialists around the world. He is co-author (with Shane Archibald) of Leading and Managing Innovation: What Every Executive Team Must Know About Project, Program, and Portfolio Management (2013); author of Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects (3rd Edition 2003), also published in Russian, Italian, and Chinese; other books (in English, Italian, Japanese, and Hungarian); and many papers on project management. Web-site: http://russarchibald.com  E-mail: Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.  

 

Darci Prado, PhD

 

Minas Gerais, Brazil

 

Darci Prado is a consultant and partner of INDG in Brazil. He is an engineer, with graduate studies in Economical Engineering at UCMG and PhD in Project Management from UNICAMP, Brazil. He has worked for IBM for 25 years and with UFMG Engineering School for 32 years. He holds the IPMA Level B Certification. He was one of the founders of Minas Gerais State and Parana State PMI chapters, and he was member of Board Directors of Minas Gerais State PMI chapter during 1998-2002 and member of the Consulting Board during 2003-2009. He was also the president of IPMA Minas Gerais State chapter during 2006-2008. He is conducting a Project Management maturity research in Brazil, Italy, Spain and Portugal together with Russell Archibald. He is author of nine books on project management and is also author of a methodology, a software application, and a maturity model for project management.  Darci can be contacted at Este endereço de email está sendo protegido de spambots. Você precisa do JavaScript ativado para vê-lo.

itmplatform

Login