Archive for April, 2010

PostHeaderIcon Project Management Maturity Models

Stages of Maturity... depending on how you measure it

Looking for a means of assessing your organization’s project management capability? Maturity models can provide a useful frame of reference and there are plenty of models out there – home-grown in-house models, proprietary models devised by consultancies and training firms, and models developed by project management standards and certification bodies.

Look before you Leap

Unsurprisingly perhaps, not all models are created equal – some are far more useful than others – so here are a few important questions to help ensure real value is delivered:

1 – Does the model provide direct input to a capability development roadmap?

There’s no point doing a maturity assessment if it does not result in an actionable plan for improvement; a well-defined, specific, accurate development roadmap should be derived directly from the assessment model and constitute the final deliverable from an effective maturity evaluation.

2 – Are elements of project, program and portfolio management appropriately represented in the model?

For most organizations, project management capability is dependent on practices in all three of these disciplines, not just the first. Few models give adequate coverage to portfolio and program management; most lack proper process frameworks in these domains and some consider portfolio applies only at higher levels of maturity – both of which result in incomplete and misleading assessments.

3 – Are people skills and toolsets properly evaluated as well as processes?

An assessment of maturity is only valid if it includes a fair evaluation of project management awareness and knowledge (such as through interviews and surveys), its application through tools and templates, and the artifacts that result. The breadth, depth, suitability and quality of know-how, supporting tools and project documentation should all be rated across each of the project, program and portfolio disciplines.

4 – Does the model provide for appropriate discounting of non-relevant areas?

Not all organizations have the same needs; for example, deeper aspects of project planning and control may be of little importance in some research or non-complex service environments; conversely, many components of portfolio management will be unnecessary to an organization that only performs 1 or 2 major construction projects per year.

5 – Does the model assess a reasonable number of maturity attributes and capability indicators?

Too few indicators are likely to omit key areas; too many will result in data overload and an implausible development roadmap; OPM3 from the PMI is a case in point with a ridiculously impractical base model of 488 best practices.  Accurate results and effective improvement plans have more to do with striking a balance between model detail and experienced application rather than analysis-paralysis.

Shaping the Future

Maturity models, combined with their associated assessment techniques and action-oriented outcomes, can offer the best basis for shaping project environments – but only if properly designed and entrusted to experienced hands.