Introducing the Project Management MaturityModel (ProMMM)

Many businesses are recognizing the power of a project-based ap-proach, and are implementing project management as a corecompetence. The value of a formal and structured approach toproject management is becoming increasingly recognized as thediscipline develops and more organizations begin to reap thebenefits of proactive project-based management. The successfulbusiness will be the one that manages its projects most effectively,maximizing competitive benefits while minimizing the inevitableuncertainty. Guidelines and standards define best practice proj-ect management (for example, PMBOK 2000, APM-BoK 2000,BS6079-1: 2000), and there are a number of sources of helpavailable to organizations wishing to develop or improve in-house project management processes.

In order for an organization to be able to determine whetherits project management processes are adequate, agreed mea-sures are required to enable it to compare its management ofprojects with best practice or against its competitors. As with anychange program, benchmarks and maturity models can play animportant part in the process by defining a structured route toimprovement.

The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM) hasbeen developed to meet these needs, drawing on establishedconcepts from existing models such as the Capability MaturityModel (CMM) from Carnegie-Mellon Software EngineeringInstitute (Paulk et al. 1993, 1995) and the EFQM ExcellenceModel from the European Foundation for Quality Management(EFQM, 1999). It also draws on a previously published model de-veloped to assess organizational risk management capability

Benchmarking Project Managem

David Hillson, PMP, Ph.D., FAPM APMProject Management Profe(the Risk Maturity Modelsee Hillson 1997). The basis forProMMM is practical and pragmatic, based on the empirical ex-perience of its developers in providing project managementconsultancy across a wide range of industries over many years.The lack of an academic research base is not felt to be a disad-vantage, as ProMMM represents the accumulated wisdom andexpertise of project management professionals who are leadingpractitioners in the field.

ProMMM acts as a benchmark for organizational projectmanagement capability, describing four increasing levels, withdefined stages along the way against which organizations can

Proceedings of the Project Management November 110, 2001benchmark themselves. Since its original development,ProMMM has been used by several major organizations tobenchmark their project management processes as part of an im-provement initiative, and there has been considerable interest init as a means of assisting organizations to introduce effectiveproject management. Other practitioners are expressing interestin development of benchmarks for project management basedon the principles of maturity models, and this seems likely to be-come an important area for future development (see for exam-ple Remy 1997; Hartman & Skulmoski 1998; Ibbs & Kwak 1998;Hartman 2000; Lubianiker 2000). A major project from ProjectManagement Institute (PMI) is currently developing theOrganizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)(Combe 1998; Schlichter 1999a, 1999b; Schlichter & Skulmoski2000) and this is likely to offer a more comprehensive assessmentand framework than ProMMM; nevertheless the practical focusof ProMMM allows it to be used to support improvement ini-tiatives in practice.

ProMMM Structure

The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM) describesfour levels of increasing project management capability, termedNave, Novice, Normalized and Natural. The aim is to provide astructured route to excellence in project management, with definedstages along the way against which organizations can benchmarkthemselves. The various levels can be summarized as follows: The Nave project management organization (ProMMM Level1) is unaware of the need for management of projects, and hasno structured approach to projects. Management processes are

Organizationalent Capability

P MIMgt, Director of Consultancy,ssional Solutions Limitedrepetitive and reactive, with little or no attempt to learn from thepast or to prepare for future threats or uncertainties. At ProMMM Level 2, the Novice project management orga-nization has begun to experiment with project management,perhaps through a small number of nominated individuals, buthas no formal or structured generic processes in place. Althoughaware of the potential benefits of managing projects, the Noviceorganization has not effectively implemented project manage-ment processes and is not gaining the full benefits. The level to which most organizations aspire when settingtargets for management of projects is captured in ProMMM

Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium Nashville,Tenn., USA

SUMMARYDEFINITION

LEVEL 1NAIVE

Unaware of the need formanagement of projects.No structured approach toprojects. Repetitive &reactive managementprocesses. Little or noattempt to learn frompast or to prepare forfuture.

LEVELNOVIC

Experimentingproject managthrough a smalof individuals. Nstructured appplace. Aware obenefits of manprojects, but inimplementatiogaining full ben

Exhibit 1. Attributes of ProMMM LevelsLevel 3, the Normalized project management organization. At thislevel, project management is implemented across all aspects ofthe business. Generic project management processes are for-malized and widespread, and the benefits are understood at alllevels of the organization, although they may not be fullyachieved in all cases. Many organizations would probably be happy to remain atLevel 3, but ProMMM defines a further level of maturity inproject management processes, termed the Natural project man-agement organization (Level 4). Here the organization has afully project-based culture, with a proactive approach to projectmanagement in all aspects of the business. Project-based infor-

Proceedings of the Project ManagementNovember 110, 2001

CULTURE

PROCESS

EXPERIENCE

APPLICATION

No awareness of thebenefits of projectmanagement. Resistant/reluctant to change.Tendency to continuewith existing processes.

No formal processes.

No understanding ofproject principles orlanguage.

No structured application.No dedicated resources.No project tools.

Inconsistent apVariable availabstaff. Ad hoc coof tools and me

Limited to indivwho may have little or no formtraining.

No generic formprocesses, althosome specific fmethods may bProcess effectivdepends heaviskills of the in-hproject team anavailability of esupport.

Project processbe viewed as aoverhead with benefits. Projemanagement oon selected pro 2E

LEVEL 3NORMALISED

withement,l numbero generic

roach inf potentialaging

effectiven, notefits.

LEVEL 4NATURAL

Project-aware culture,with proactive approachto project managementin all aspects of thebusiness. Active use ofproject information toimprove businessprocesses and gaincompetitive advantage.

Management of projectsbuilt into routine businessprocesses.Formalised genericproject managementprocesses implementedon most or all projects.Benefits understood atall levels of theorganisation, althoughnot always consistentlymation is actively used to improve business processes and gaincompetitive advantage.

Each ProMMM level is further defined in terms of four at-tributes, namely culture, process, experience and application.These allow an organization to assess its current project man-agement processes against agreed criteria, set realistic targets forimprovement, and measure progress towards enhanced projectmanagement capability. The four attributes were selected torepresent the areas required for effective project management,reflecting the wide recognition that tools and training are notsufficient enablers. Many organizations make the mistake of be-lieving that purchasing the right software tool and sending

Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium Nashville,Tenn., USA

plication.ility of

llectionthods.

idualshadal

alugh

ormale in use.eness

ly on theoused

xternal

es maydditionalvariablectnly usedjects.

achieved.

Routine & consistentapplication to all projects.Committed resources.Integrated set of toolsand methods.

Second-nature, appliedto all activities.Project-based reporting& decision-making.State-of-the-art toolsand methods.

In-house core ofexpertise, formallytrained in basic skills.Development of specificprocesses and tools.

All staff project-aware& using basic skills.Learning fromexperience as part ofthe process. Regularexternal trainingto enhance skills.

Generic processesapplied to most or allprojects. Formalprocesses, incorporatedinto quality system.Active allocation &management of projectbudgets at all levels.Limited need forexternal support.

Project-based businessprocesses. TotalProject Managementpermeating entirebusiness. Regularrefreshing & updatingof processes. Routineproject metrics withconstant feedback forimprovement.

Accepted policy forproject management.Benefits recognised &expected. Prepared tocommit resources inorder to reap gains.

Top-down commitmentto project management,with leadership byexample. Proactiveproject managementencouraged & rewarded.

pse

o

cm e

cHow does the organization respondto the claim that effective projectmanagement is critical tobusiness success?

To what extent is the organizationcommitted to proactive andsystematic management of projects?

How formal are project managementprocesses? Are they fully defined,with clear scope and objectives?

How stable and mature are projectmanagement processes?

Reactive response

Variable response seen as an unneceObjective responsas part of businessProactive responsecontributor to meeNo commitmentPartial commitmenConsistent policy fWhole-hearted topThere are no projeProcesses are inforGeneric processesFormal processes aThere are no projeProject manageme

Exhibit 2. Sample ProMMM Questionnaire questionsstaff on training courses will result in effective project man-agement. It is however clear that other factors are equally im-portant, if not more so. One crucial area is organizationalculture, covering the mindset, ethos and belief structure of theorganization, which drive instinctive assumptions and reac-tions. A second element required for effective project manage-ment is embodied in the process attribute, covering methods,tools and techniques available to support project management.A third essential contributor to project management is experi-ence, both individual and corporate, expressing the extent towhich the principles and practice of project management areunderstood. Lastly, project management must be put into prac-tice, and the effectiveness of application will be a key measureof project management maturity.The ProMMM framework defines each of the four levels againstthe four attributes, as follows: For the Level 1 Nave project management organization, theattributes are all at the lowest level. The culture is resistant tochange and the need for project management is not recognized.

Proceedings of the Project Management November 110, 2001

How well do staff understand theunderlying principles of projectmanagement?

What is the scope of applicationof project management processes?

What level of familiarity andexpertise do staff have in usingthe practical skills and techniquesof project management?

Project managemeProject managemeNo understandingBasic understandinThorough understaIntuitive understanNo knowledge or eBasic grasp of standEffective use of all mExpert use of all curNo application of pApplied to occasionRoutinely applied tAll activities are encproject management is not required for success

roject management is tolerated but sometimessary add-on project management is recognized and accepted

project management is welcomed as an essentialting business objectives

tr project management

-down commitmentt management processes in place

al and specific to particular projectsxist covering most aspects of the business

re flexibly applied to match requirementst management processes in placent processes are immature and still developingThere are no project management processes, no experience ofusing project management and no application within the business. The culture of the Level 2 Novice project management orga-nization is not fully convinced of the benefits of project manage-ment and tends to see it as a necessary overhead. Processes arerather ad hoc and their effectiveness depends on the limited ex-perience of a few key individuals who may have little formal train-ing. Project management application is inconsistent and patchy. Level 3 project management organizations have Normalizedproject management into their way of operating, with a culturethat recognizes the value of projects and expects to reap bene-fits from managing them. Generic and formal processes are inplace, with the necessary resources available, and staff has ade-quate experience and expertise to undertake effective projectmanagement. Application is routine and consistent across allprojects. At Level 4 Natural, a project-based culture drives the orga-nization into proactive project management, seeking to gain thefull advantages of the changing business environment. Best-

Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium Nashville,Tenn., USA

nt processes are stable and maturent processes are regularly refreshed/updated

gndingdingxpertise of project management techniquesard techniquesain techniques

rent techniquesroject management processesal projects (especially large/difficult/strategic)

o all projects & bidsompassed by the project management process

practice processes are implemented at all levels of the business,with regular updating and active learning from previous projects.All staff has a degree of experience of using project managementprocesses to assist their tasks, and application is widespread andsecond nature across all areas.

Detailed attribute descriptions are contained in Exhibit 1.

Using ProMMM in Practice

ProMMM can be used by organizations to benchmark theirproject management processes, and support introduction of ef-fective in-house project management. With ProMMM, imple-mentation of project management processes can be managedeffectively to ensure that the expected benefits are achieved in away that is appropriate to the needs of each particular organi-zation. Assessment of an organizations project management

Exhibit 3. Sample ProMMM Radar Plotcapability against the ProMMM framework can be undertakenusing two complementary approaches: a perception-based ques-tionnaire, and structured interviews with key staff.

ProMMM Questionnaire

The ProMMM Questionnaire can be used to allow an organiza-tion to diagnose its current position within the ProMMM frame-work. By assessing performance against the four attributes, areasof strength and weakness can be identified, using the standarddefinitions associated with the four ProMMM levels. For each at-tribute, a series of questions in the ProMMM Questionnaire ex-plores respondents perception of the degree to which theirorganization manages projects effectively, with a range of answersprovided to each question corresponding to one of the fourProMMM levels. Sample questions are detailed in Exhibit 2.

It is important to seek responses from a wide range of staff, andto guarantee that the responses of specific individuals will not beidentified, in order to preserve confidentiality and encourage

Proceedings of the Project Management INovember 110, 2001frank expressions of opinion. Responses can be analyzed for thewhole data set as well as by various organizational factors, suchas job role, site or business area. This sub-analysis allows differ-ences in project management maturity across the organizationto be assessed, exposing areas of particular strength which mightact as models for others, as well as revealing which parts of theorganization might need special attention.

Questionnaire responses are entered into a database, allowingattribute scores to be calculated and analyzed. Each ProMMM at-tribute (Culture, Process, Experience, Application) is assessedusing a number of targeted questions. Answers to each questionare scored 14, indicating the corresponding ProMMM level. Themean score is calculated for each question, and for the set ofquestions for each attribute, with standard deviations showingthe degree of agreement between respondents. ProMMM levelsfor each attribute are determined by rounding the mean score tothe nearest decimal place, and the overall ProMMM level is cal-culated as the average of all four attributes. Results are presentedas a radar plot of the four attributes, as well as numerical valuesof attribute scores and overall ProMMM level, as shown inExhibit 3.

Interpretation of ProMMM Questionnaire results

The structure of the ProMMM framework facilitates analysis ofthe resulting data and allows detailed interpretation to exposestrengths and weaknesses in current project management capa-bility. The assessment is undertaken bottom-up, with scores forindividual questions being averaged to give attribute scores,which are in turn averaged to give an overall ProMMM level. Allscores are calculated to one decimal place, recognizing that or-ganizations undertaking improvement initiatives are likely to liebetween levels in the ProMMM framework.

Having performed a bottom-up calculation, interpretation isdone top-down in three stages:

1. ProMMM Level2. Attribute scores3. Individual questionsThe overall ProMMM Level defines the position of the orga-

nization within the ProMMM framework, as a Nave, Novice,Normalized or Natural project management organization. Thesummary descriptions of these types of organization can beused as headlines to present the results of the analysis, althoughthese are necessarily generalizations. Further detail on the par-ticular position of an organization is gained by a more in-depthanalysis of the results at lower levels, namely attributes and in-dividual questions.

Attribute scores expose areas of particular strength and weak-ness within the overall assessment of an organization at a par-ticular ProMMM level. Intermediate positions can also berecognized, such as Improving Novice, or EnhancedNormalized, and these are particularly useful where there is adiscrepancy between attribute scores, which reveal strengthsand weaknesses in the project management approach. One com-mon combination of attribute scores is high C/P with low E/A,nstitute Annual Seminars & Symposium Nashville,Tenn., USA

indicating organizations which believe in project managementand have implemented project processes, but whose staff lack thenecessary skills and experience leading to limited application ef-fectivenessgood theory but poor practice. Another frequent re-sult is high P/E and low C/A, representing an organization withthe necessary infrastructure in terms of processes and skills, butwhose culture does not recognize the value of project manage-ment, again leading to a failure to apply a project managementapproachable but not willing.

The final level of analysis addresses results for individual ques-tions, which allows a detailed consideration of particular as-pects of project management, giving the degree of granularitynecessary for understanding project management maturity indepth, and allowing development of an effective improvementprogram.

At each level of interpretation, calculation of standard devia-tion is used to indicate the extent of agreement between re-spondents, with standard deviations of up to 0.6 beingconsidered normal for a questionnaire-based approach.

ProMMM Structured Interviews

Interviews can be used to supplement, enhance or reinforce theresults obtained from the ProMMM Questionnaire, since it isrecognized that the questionnaire only assesses the perceptions ofrespondents and therefore represents a subjective opinion. Aquestionnaire-based approach is also limited in scope since it canonly address those issues listed in the questions. Finally, there isroom for significant differences in interpretation of the meaningof questions between respondents, especially where unfamiliarconcepts are used, or where there are native language differences.

In order to verify the data obtained from ProMMMQuestionnaire returns, a set of structured interviews is thereforeoften conducted, with key staff selected to represent a widecross-section of the organization. Each ProMMM interview lastsabout one hour, and is based around a structured interviewframework that covers all four ProMMM attributes. Interviewersare permitted to adopt a range of different interviewing styles inorder to maximize interview effectiveness, and are not restrictedto following the interview framework rigidly. Where an interviewexposes issues of interest relevant to the assessment of projectmanagement capability, the interviewer should be free to pursuesuch lines, and as a result not all questions in the ProMMM in-terview framework are necessarily covered in all interviews.

Case Study using ProMMM

The author has considerable experience in using maturity modelapproaches to benchmark capability as part of developing an im-provement program. A recent study (December 2000January2001) was undertaken for a multinational organization wishingto enhance project management capability, who requested aProMMM assessment in order to define the starting point fortheir improvement initiative. The organization had recentlyProceedings of the Project Management INovember 110, 2001been through a merger process, and their operations were con-ducted on seven major sites across two continents.

ProMMM Questionnaires were distributed by email to 750staff involved in projects, ranging from senior management toproject team members. Responses identified site, job role, andtechnical area, allowing a detailed analysis of any variance in proj-ect management capability across different parts of the organi-zation. In addition to the questionnaire, a set of structuredinterviews were held with 30 senior staff, including project di-rectors and project managers across all sites and technical areaswithin the company.

On analysis of ProMMM Questionnaire returns, the organi-zation was rated at ProMMM Level 2.6, representing anImproving Noviceproject management organization. Attributescores were: Culture 2.6, Process 2.7, Experience 2.4, Application2.6. Higher scores for culture, process and application com-bined with a lower score for experience indicated that the prin-ciples and framework for effective project management were inplace, and that these were being used in practice. It was howevernecessary to ensure that staff had the skills and knowledge re-quired to apply project management effectively. The companywas advised to build on the foundation of its project-aware cul-ture and good project processes, but concentrating on develop-ing the competence levels of staff.

Specific strengths and weaknesses within each attribute wereindicated by answers to individual questions in the ProMMMQuestionnaire, which indicated that though the organizationwas aware of the benefits of project management, it was reluc-tant to change, perhaps as a result of change fatigue followingthe recent merger. Processes were found to be formally estab-lished, but were not perceived as stable or effective. Project man-agement techniques were consistently applied, but there was alack of supporting tools. The greatest area of concern was in ex-perience levels, where individuals had limited practical skills, andthere was no formal organizational learning from experience.

Conclusions from the structured interviews broadly con-firmed the findings of the questionnaire analysis. Key issuesarising from interviews included confirmation of the presenceof change fatiguem, and highlighted the need to pay attentionto operating as a single global organization post-merger withoutlosing the distinctive strengths and legacy of each location. Theroles and expectations for Project Managers required clear def-inition, and it was also important to develop and support proj-ect management skills and team working. Process improvementneeded to be focused on simplification of existing processes toremove nonvalue-added activities, with particular attention todecision-making, prioritization, and resource management.

As a result of the ProMMM analysis, the organization definedthe scope and content of a project management improvement ini-tiative, setting a target of reaching ProMMM Level 3 within twoyears, with further ProMMM audits during the initiative to mea-sure progress toward this goal. The detailed implementation plantook full cognizance of the findings of the ProMMM assessment,focusing on areas revealed as weaknesses by the analysis.nstitute Annual Seminars & Symposium Nashville,Tenn., USA

Schlichter J. 1999b. Surveying Project Management Capabilities. PMNetwork, 13 (4), 3940.

Schlichter J., & Skulmoski G. 2000. Organisational ProjectManagement Maturity: New Frontiers. Proceedings of 15th IPMAWorld Congress on Project Management, London, 2225 May 2000.Conclusion and Summary

The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM) presentedhere represents a practical and empirical approach to assessingcurrent project management capability, based on a simple prag-matic foundation. Organizations wishing to improve effectivenessof their project management need to be able to measure currentcapability and define improvement targets. The ProMMMframework allows diagnosis of the current position as well as pre-senting a well-defined target in the next ProMMM level, allow-ing improvement to be planned and providing a foundation formeasurement of progress. Current indications are that organi-zations find this pragmatic approach both valuable and cost-ef-fective, since ProMMM allows them to assess their projectmanagement against agreed criteria, set realistic targets for im-provement, and measure progress towards enhanced capability.

References

APM-BoK. 2000. Project Management Body of Knowledge, FourthEdition. High Wycombe, UK: Association for Project Management.ISBN 1-903494-00-1

British Standard BS6079-1:2000. Project ManagementPart 1: Guideto project management. British Standards Institute, UK. ISBN 0-580-25594-8

Combe M.W. 1998. Standards Committee Tackles ProjectManagement Maturity Models. PM Network, 12 (8).

EFQM. 1999. The EFQM Excellence ModelCompanies version.ISBN 90-5236-360-9. Further details from the European Foundation forQuality Management (EFQM), Avenue des Pliades 15, B-1200 Brussels,Belgium. Telephone +32.2775.3511, Fax +32.2775.3535, e-mailmodel.info@EFQM.org, website www.EFQM.org

Hartman F. 2000. Dont Park Your Brain Outside. Newtown Square,PA: Project Management Institute. ISBN 1-880410-48-6.

Hartman F., and Skulmoski G. 1998. Project Management Maturity.Project Management, 4 (1), 7478.

Hillson D.A. 1997. Towards a Risk Maturity Model. Int J Project &Business Risk Mgt, 1 (1)), 3545. [The Risk Maturity Model was a con-cept of, and was originally developed by, HVR Consulting ServicesLimited in 1997. All rights in the Risk Maturity Model belong to HVRConsulting Services Limited.]

Ibbs C.W., and Kwak Y.H. 1998. Benchmarking Project ManagementOrganisations. PM Network, 12 (2), 4953.

Lubianiker S. 2000. Opening the Book on the Open Maturity Model.PM Network, 14 (3), 30-33.

Paulk M.C., Curtis W., Chrissis M., and Weber C.B. 1993. CapabilityMaturity Model Version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10 (4), 1827.

Paulk M.C., Weber C.B., Curtis W., and Chrissis M. (editors). 1995.The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for improving the softwareprocess. Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54664-7.

Project Management Institute. 2000. A Guide to the ProjectManagement Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) - 2000 Edition.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. ISBN 1-880410-25-7 (CD-ROM).

Remy R. 1997. Adding Focus to Improvement Efforts with PM3. PMNetwork, 11 (7).

Schlichter J. 1999a. An Organizational PM Maturity Model. PMNetwork, 13 (2).Proceedings of the Project Management INovember 110, 2001 nstitute Annual Seminars & SymposiumNashville,Tenn., USA

Close: