ORGANIZATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL (OPM3) TO

IMPROVE MINISTRY OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING (MOCAH) WITHIN

KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

A Thesis
by
AZAD JABBAR MUSTAFA

Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Chair of Committee,
Co-Chair of Committee,
Committee Member,
Head of Department,

John Walewski
Stuart Anderson
Julian (Ho -Yeong) Kang
Robin Autenrieth
May 2015

Major Subject: Civil Engineering

Copyright 2015 Azad Jabbar Mustafa

ABSTRACT

The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), a standard

developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI), has become an effective model to
help an organization successfully implement strategies and achieve its objectives
consistently, reliably, and predictably. This research studies the application of the OPM3
to assess the organizational project management capabilities of the Ministry of
Construction and Housing (MOCAH) within Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).
The research provides a review of a project management office (PMO),
organizational project management (OPM), project management maturity (PMM), types
of maturity models, previous applications/examples of OPM3 and their findings, and
selecting the OMP3 model for the research case study (MOCAH). Furthermore, the
research provides OPM3 concepts; elements, domains, processes, components, construct,
and an application of the OPM3 assessment tool. A brief background of the Kurdistan
Region and Kurdistan Regional Government and MOCAH is provided. A Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis was used to identify MOCAHs current
structure and OPM performance that are not optimal to deliver projects successfully.
Therefore, the objective of the research is to apply the OPM3 model to assess the current
PMM of MOCAH and develop a roadmap for improvements.
The OPM3 assessment was conducted by an industry expert in collaboration with
MOCAH stakeholders. Different questions and several questionnaires were posed to the
stakeholders, and the results were used to assess the maturity level of MOCAH. The scope
ii

of this research is limited to the Project Management Domain and to the Standardization
level per the OPM3 methodology.
The result of the assessment showed that as scores (as percentages), Project
Management was assessed at 25 percent (of the first of four stages of project management
maturity, starting with standardization), and that the Organizational Enablers (OEs)
pertaining to the culture and environment were scored at 38 percent; and the total score
was 32 percent.
According to the results, the maturity level of MOCAH was determined to be low,
yet MOCAH is capable of seizing the opportunity to transform its project delivery
capabilities. Significant recommendations are provided regarding process improvements
(focusing on Standardization as the prerequisite for Measurement, Control, and
Continuous Improvement), as well as strategies to achieve higher maturity levels (first in
Standardization of Project Management, but also in the Program and Portfolio
Management Domains, particularly the latter).

iii

DEDICATION

To my parents, wife, and children,

To the brave men and women Peshmerga,
To the Kurds and Kurdistan

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Walewski, my committee co-chair,

Dr. Anderson, and my committee member, Dr. Kang, for their guidance and support
throughout the course of this research.
Thanks to my teachers Dr. Damnjanovic, Dr. Ford, Judge Grisham, and Dr.
Bigelow who have contributed greatly to broadening my knowledge and experiences
through invaluable courses and efforts in my studies. Thanks to the head of Zachry
Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. Autenrieth, and department faculty and staff,
especially Ms. Laura Byrd, for their continuous support and advice through the entire
duration of my study.
Special thanks to Mr. Darbaz K. Rasoul (the Minister, MOCAH), Mr. Agreen. A.
Aziz, (the Deputy Minister, MOCAH), Mr. Zana M. Uzeri, (DG of Technique affairs and
planning, MOCAH), and Mr. Rasheed A.B. Hamawand (Engineering Technical Advisor
MOCAH) for all their invaluable contribution to make this project a big success.
Thanks to all my friends who participated effectively as the main MOCAHs
stakeholders; (Sanaw F. Mohammed, Khatab Q. Darwish, Shukir P. Singo, Sajid A.
Khalid, Lajan M. Mustafa, Hiwa A. Noori, Ban M. Sulaiman, Solav I. Ezzat, Houssein A.
Saleem, Yusif Q. H. Ameen, Bassam Yousif, Ayoub H. Rwandzy, Shohan Z. Tahir, and
all the employees in the IT and administration departments).
Special thanks to Mr. Nariman K. Awla for uncountable support and useful
information and to Mr. Hakeem Wlya for his coordination and support.
v

Thanks to Mr. John Schlichter from OPM Experts LLC, for his invaluable efforts
and support and his patience throughout the process of conducting the OPM3 assessment
processes, surveys, and his assistance with analyzing the results and the recommendations.
I would like to extend my gratitude to Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) for
uncountable support by which none of all my achievements would have been attained
without providing a scholarship to study at one of the high ranked universities in the US
and the world as well, such as Texas A&M University. In particular, thanks to Mr. Baravan
Hamdi (DG) and Ms. Lanja Dizayee (Consultant) at (Ministry of Martyrs and Anfal
Affairs-KRG), Dr. Govand Sherwani, and Mr. Raad Abul- Kareem for their significant
role to attain my scholarship.
Last but not the least, great thanks to my great parents who always pray for me to
achieve the best. Thanks to my dear brother Serwan J. Mustafa for his countless support
and efforts throughout our staying abroad. Thanks to my wife and children for their love,
support, encouragement, and patience throughout my studies, which gave me more
enthusiasm to face all my challenges and reach the end of the journey.

vi

NOMENCLATURE

ASTTMM:

Automated Software Testing Maturity Model

BP:

Best Practice

CMMI:

Capability Maturity Model Integration

EVM3:

Earned Value Management Maturity Model

IPD-CMM:

Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model

IPMA:

International Project Management Association

IPMM:

Information Process Maturity Model

ITI-MM:

Information Technology Infrastructure Maturity Model

KPIs:

Key Performance Indicators

KRG:

Kurdistan Regional Government

MOCAH:

Ministry of Construction and Housing

OEs:

Organizational Enablers

OPM:

Organizational Project Management

OPM3:

Organizational Project Management Maturity Model

OPMM:

Organizational Project Management Maturity

P2MM:

PRINCE2 Maturity Model

P3M3:

Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model

PBO:

Project Based Organization

P-CMM:

People Capability Maturity Model

PEM:

Project Excellence Model

vii

PMI:

Project Management Institute

PMIS

Project Management Information Systems

PMM:

Project Management Maturity

PMMMs:

Program Management Maturity Models

PMO:

Project Management Office

PPP:

Project, Program, and Portfolio

RMM:

Risk Management Maturity Model

SAM:

Self-Assessment Module

SE-CMM:

Software Engineering Capability Maturity Model

SEI:

Software Engineering Institute

SIMM:

Service Integration Maturity Model

SMCI:

Standardize, Measure, Control, continuously Improve

SW-CMM:

Capability Maturity Model for Software

SWOT:

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

TMM:

Testing Maturity Model for Quality Assurance

TQM:

Total Quality Management

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... v
NOMENCLATURE .........................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................xii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xiii
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8

Research Overview ............................................................................................ 1

Research Problem Statement .............................................................................. 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 4
Research Objectives ........................................................................................... 4
Research Scope .................................................................................................. 5
Research Methodology....................................................................................... 5
Research Limitations/Constraints ...................................................................... 9
Research Organization ..................................................................................... 10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 12

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

What is a Project? ............................................................................................. 12

What is Project Management?.......................................................................... 13
Organizational Project Management (OPM).................................................... 15
Project Management Office (PMO) ................................................................. 16
Types of Organizations .................................................................................... 19
Project-Based Organizations (PBOs) ............................................................... 21
Portfolios, Programs, and Projects ................................................................... 22
Maturity Concept and Definition ..................................................................... 23
Maturity Models ............................................................................................... 27

3. OPM3 CONCEPTS ...................................................................................................... 30

ix

3.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 What is OPM3? ............................................................................................ 31
3.1.2 The History of OPM3 ................................................................................... 32
3.1.3 What Does OPM3 Do? ................................................................................. 35
3.1.4 OPM3 Benefits ............................................................................................. 35
3.1.5 OPM3 Purpose ............................................................................................. 36
3.2
OPM3 Previous Case Studies (Examples) ....................................................... 36
3.2.1 Example 1: The Washington Savannah River Co. (WSRC). ....................... 39
3.2.2 Example 2: Shanghai Airport Authority ...................................................... 42
3.3
OPM3 Key Elements ........................................................................................ 44
3.3.1 Knowledge.................................................................................................... 45
3.3.2 Assessment ................................................................................................... 45
3.3.3 Improvement ................................................................................................ 45
3.4
OPM3 Domains ................................................................................................ 45
3.4.1 Project Management Domain ....................................................................... 46
3.4.2 Program Management Domain .................................................................... 46
3.4.3 Portfolio Management Domain .................................................................... 46
3.5
Organizational Project Management Processes ............................................... 46
3.6
OPM3 Best Practices ........................................................................................ 47
3.6.1 Best Practice Constituent Components ........................................................ 47
3.7
OPM3 Improvement Stages (SMCI) ................................................................ 48
3.8
Organizational Enablers (OEs) Best Practices ................................................. 48
3.9
Dependencies and Interrelationships among OPM3 Components ................... 49
3.10 OPM3 Maturity Assessment Tools .................................................................. 50
3.10.1 SAM/ OPM3 Online................................................................................... 50
3.10.2 OPM3 ProductSuite Assessment Tool ....................................................... 51
3.11 OPM3 Improvement Cycle .............................................................................. 53
4. KURDISTAN REGION MINISTRY OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING ....... 54
4.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 54
4.2
Kurdistan Region and Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Background . 55
4.3
The Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH) ................................... 57
4.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 57
4.3.2 MOCAHs Vision, Mission, and Strategic Plan........................................... 58
4.3.3 MOCAH Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS) ................................ 61
4.3.4 MOCAH Size (Employees Number) ............................................................ 65
4.4
SWOT Analysis and MOCAH ......................................................................... 66
4.4.1 SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................ 66
4.4.2 MOCAH Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ..................... 67
5. INCORPORATE OPM3 INTO MOCAH .................................................................... 75
5.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 75
x

5.2
OPM3 Process Overview ................................................................................. 77
5.3
OPM3 Assessment Steps.................................................................................. 78
5.3.1 Step One: Prepare for Assessment ............................................................... 78
5.3.2 Step Two: Perform Assessment ................................................................... 79
5.3.3 Step Three: Plan for Improvements.............................................................. 82
5.3.4 Step Four: Implement Improvements ........................................................... 84
5.3.5 Step Five: Repeat the Process ...................................................................... 86
5.4
Summary and Findings..................................................................................... 86
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 88
6.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 88
6.2
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 88
6.2.1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 88
6.2.2 Findings ........................................................................................................ 91
6.3
Research Significance and Contributions ........................................................ 91
6.4
Recommendations ............................................................................................ 92
6.4.1 Recommendations for MOCAHs Project Management Processes ............. 92
6.4.2 Recommendations for the Standardization of Project Management
Domain ..................................................................................................................... 93
6.4.3 Recommendations for the Organizational Enablers (OEs) .......................... 94
6.5
Roadmap........................................................................................................... 96
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 98
APPENDIX A. SCORE SUMMARY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT ................... 104
APPENDIX B. MOCAH PLANNED ROADS PROJECTS (2015-2030) .................... 107
APPENDIX C. MOCAH PLANNED BRIDGES (2015-2030) ..................................... 111

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Research Framework .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. The Relationships between Portfolios, Programs, and Projects ....................... 23
Figure 3. OPM3 Online Self-Assessment ........................................................................ 51
Figure 4. OPM3 ProductSuite and Capability-Outcome Statements ............................... 52
Figure 5. Figure. Kurdistan Flag, KRG Arm, and Kurdistan Region Map ...................... 56
Figure 6. MOCAH OBS 1 ................................................................................................ 63
Figure 7. MOCAH OBS 2 ................................................................................................ 64
Figure 8. SWOT Analysis Elements ................................................................................ 67
Figure 9. Conceptual MOCAH's OBS in Terms of (PPP) Management Domains .......... 76

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Types of PMO Structures ................................................................................... 19
Table 2. Examples of OPM3 Application by other Companies ....................................... 38
Table 3.Assessment Results for WSRC ........................................................................... 41
Table 4. Assessment Results for SAA ............................................................................. 44
Table 5. Planned Roads Projects (2015-2030) ................................................................. 60
Table 6. Proposed Bridges (2015-2030) .......................................................................... 61
Table 7. Number and Positions of MOCAH's Employees ............................................... 65
Table 8. Project Management Processes .......................................................................... 77
Table 9. MOCAH's Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 80
Table 10. Summary of the Assessment Scores ................................................................ 81
Table 11. Score Summary for Process Maturity and Organizational Enablers ................ 83
Table 12. OEs Recommendations .................................................................................... 95
Table 13. Roadmap .......................................................................................................... 97

xiii

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1

Research Overview
The dynamic condition of the industry environment increases the competition

among organizations and thereby increases more challenges for any organization to
sustain and obtain its strategic objectives. Therefore, it is essential for organizations to
adopt project management concepts as a strategic tool to achieve its objectives. The roots
of modern project management were recognized in the Second World War (Morris Peter
WG 1994), and developed in a limited number of engineering based industries during the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s (Cooke Davies and Arzymanowe, 2003). Project management
is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet
project requirements (The Project Management Institute [PMI] (2008)). It can also be
defined as a general purpose management process that can bring projects to successful
completion and to the satisfaction of the project stakeholders (Hutson, 1997).
Establishing the Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCHA) in the Kurdistan
Regional Government (KRG) of Iraq was a significant step to fulfill the local demands of
projects in the region. Development projects in the developing countries are generally
focused towards infrastructure development, transportation, irrigation and agriculture
(Muspratt, 1987). MOCAH emphasizes reconstruction and development of infrastructure
in two main types of projects; housing and transportation (Ahmed, K., MOCAH Minister,
2013). Due to the destructive and harmful policies of Iraqi governments through several
decades, the Kurdistan Region suffered from serious problems regarding the infrastructure
1

projects. Therefore, since its establishment in 2004, MOCAH was tasked to face many
challenges due to the enormous urgent infrastructure development and construction
requirements. Accordingly, as a new organization in a developing country, MOCAH faces
a growing need to reorganize its organizational departments to provide better
performance incentives to their public officials (Kulshreshtha, 2008). Within MOCAH,
as a public organization, it is common to realize the lack of knowledge and awareness of
the new tools & techniques in the growing field of project management, which results
potential failure of the project with respect to scope, time and cost management (Sonuga,
et al, 2002).
To enhance the project management performance within MOCAH, project
management maturity level must be high (Jammuldin. R et al 2010). According to
previous research, an organization should determine the project management maturity
assessment process as an effective approach for delivering projects successfully. To
optimize the organizations current structure and project management performance, a
maturity model is required to assess MOCAHs current status regarding its organizational
project management maturity. Previous research and case-studies document different
types of project management maturity models including:
-

Capability Maturity Model/Integration (CMM)/(CMMI)

Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)

PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM)

Program Management Maturity Model (PMMM)

Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3)

2

Project Excellent Model.

Based on the functionality of the above maturity models, this research selected the

Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) as an effective and suitable

model to assess MOCAHs project management maturity. The reason for selecting the
OPM3 model was because this model is more adaptable for MOCAH, as a projectbased
organization (PBO), than other models. Furthermore, the OPM3 is flexible and scalable
for the assessment process for most of organizations regardless of types, sizes, complexity,
and geographic location and it helps most organizations, no matter into which level of age
or maturity the organization is (PMI OPM3 Knowledge Foundation 2013).
Given the proprietary nature of the OPM3 assessment process, John Schlichter, a
founder of OPM Experts LLC, assisted in conducting the assessment in collaboration with
MOCAH stakeholders.
Due to limitations and constraints of the research and MOCAHs challenging
conditions, the research scope is limited to assess the maturity of MOCAH in Project
Management Domain and to the Standardization level on the process improvement stage.

1.2

Research Problem Statement

The physical destruction and harmful policies of Iraqi governments have

undermined the infrastructure in Kurdistan Region. MOCAH is tasked to answer the

enormous urgent infrastructure development and construction requirements, but is
challenged by organizational and project management issues including:

Lack of organizational and project strategies,

Insufficient budget, and

Poor quality controls.

Due to the lack of effective assessment and organizational project management

performance, the current structure and operational procedures of MOCAH is not optimal
to successfully deliver current and future infrastructure needs of the Kurdistan Region.

1.3

Research Questions
This research aims to answer the following questions:
-

What is the current status and structure of MOCAHs project management office
(PMO)?

Where is the current location of MOCAH on the continuum of organizational

project management maturity model (OPM3)?

How does MOCAH stand in comparison with OPM3 concepts?

How to utilize OPM3 knowledge, techniques, tools, and practices to improve

MOCAH in different levels of process improvements stage and project
management domains?

1.4

Research Objectives
The research aims to incorporate OPM3 standards and practices as a roadmap to

enhance MOCAHs organizational project management capabilities by:

The assessment of MOCAHs organizational project management processes and

its current organizational project management maturity status.

Use the results of the assessment to develop an effective roadmap for

improvements, which in turn, allows MOCAH to deliver successful, predictable,
and reliable projects.

1.5

Research Scope
The research is limited in scope to assess the project management maturity of

MOCAH in the Project Management Domain and the Standardization level of process
improvement stages of OPM3.

1.6

Research Methodology
The objective of this research was to assess the level of MOCAHs maturity in

terms of project management performances utilizing the OPM3 model. For this purpose,
the research has started with a literature review of PM, PMO, PBO, Project, Program and
Portfolio management, OPM, maturity concept, types of maturity models, and selecting
OPM3 as the model for the research case study MOCAH. Furthermore, the research
provided a comprehensive overview on OPM3 concepts, elements, domains, components,
construct, and assessment tools (Self-Assessment Method (SAM) and ProductSuite). In
addition, the research provided a brief background of the Kurdistan Region, the KRG, and
MOCAH including a SWOT analysis to recognize the strengths, weaknesses, threats, and
opportunities as a general review of MOCAHs environment.
5

To conduct the OPM3 assessment process, MOCAH worked with John Schlichter,
the originator of OPM3 on PMIs behalf, to carry out the assessment process.
The first step was to apply the SAM tool, which included several questions about
MOCAHs strategic objectives, the factors that can push MOCAH to achieve its goals,
and the potential risks that may hinder MOCAH to bridge between its strategies and
objectives.
In the second step, the OPM3 ProductSuite tool was applied by delivering
questionnaire/surveys to the stakeholders. The questionnaire included a number of
questions regarding; Best Practices of Standardization of Processes, and Organizational
Enablers (OEs) as documented in Appendix A.
After analyzing the results of the assessments steps (SAM and ProdcuctSuite),
the OPM3 assessor provided significant recommendations for further studies/research to
facilitate the execution of project management maturity agendas and to create project
management capability fitting MOCAHs unique requirements and contingency factors.

Figure 1 shows the research framework which illustrates the processes of how to
incorporate OPM3 concepts into the process of assessment and improvement of the
Kurdistan Regional Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH-KRG). The
framework starts with identifying the research problem, defining research objectives, and
providing research literature review. In addition, the research framework shows the data
collection process by providing an overview of OPM3 concepts, a brief background of
KRG and MOCAH (including SWOT analysis), and other information provided by
MOCAH stakeholders. Furthermore, the framework shows the data analysis process
which includes the interaction between the OPM3 expert and MOCAH stakeholders to
conduct the OPM3 assessment. Finally, the results of the data analysis (OPM3 assessment)
were determined and the conclusions and recommendations were developed based on the
results.

Figure 1. Research Framework

1.7

Research Limitations/Constraints
A variety of factors limited the extension of this research and/r constrained the

scope as in follows:
1. Time limitations constrained the scope of the research to cover only the Project
Management domain and Standardize level within the process improvement rubric
of OPM3 (SMCI), which was appropriate to MOCAH (as proved by the
assessment scores) and precedes and invites more research analyses and studies to
cover (Program and Portfolio Management Domains) and other levels of the
process improvements stages (SMCI) in the future.
2. Lack of awareness and practice of project management and maturity knowledge in
MOCAH when this study was conducted.
3. Lack of prior research studies on organizational project management maturity
practices.
4. Unstable political status in the Kurdistan Region which impacted on the process
of gathering data about MOCAH and other relative KRGs organizations.
5. Lack of available and reliable data concerning the concepts of project management
maturity within MOCAH.
6. Poor information technologies to facilitate an effective communication between
MOCAH stakeholders and the OPM expert caused delays and impacted the
assessment process.

1.8

Research Organization

Section 1
Section 1 of the research includes the research problem statement describing the
current issues within MOCAH regarding PM performance and practices. Also this section
provides the main questions and the research objectives that the research aimed to answer.
The scope of the research, research significance/contributions, research methodology, and
research constraints and limitations were included in this section.

Section 2
Section 2 provides the literature review on PM, PMO, PBO, Project, program and
Portfolio Management, maturity concepts. This section discuses different types of
maturity models and select OPM3 among those models for the research case study
(MOCAH) assessment. The section also discusses previous examples/case studies on
OPM3 and their findings.

Section 3
Section 3 provides a comprehensive understanding of OPM3 concepts including
OPM3 elements, domains, processes, components, construct, and OPM3 assessment tools.

10

Section 4
Section 4 provides a brief background of the Kurdistan Region and KRG.
Furthermore, this section presents a SWOT analysis of MOCAH.

Section 5
Section 5 discusses the OPM3 assessment process of MOCAH by conducting both
SAM and ProductSuite assessments. In addition, this section provides the analysis of the
collected data conducted by the OPM3 expert that surveyed MOCAH stakeholders.
Finally, this section discusses the findings of the assessment process.

Section 6
This section provides the conclusions and recommendations that are based on the
results of the assessment process conducted in Section 5. Recommendations for further
research are also discussed.

11

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

What is a Project?
A project is a series of multi-functional activities and tasks that have a specific

objective to be completed within certain specifications, defined start and end dates,
funding limits, and consume human and non-human resources (Kerzner, 2009). It is also
defined as a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result
(PMBOK Guide, 2013).
A project can be defined as an endeavor in which human, material and financial
resources are organized in a novel way, to undertake a unique scope of work, of given
specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve beneficial change
defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives (Turner and Muller, 2003).
According to Meredith and Mantel a project is a specific, finite task to be
accomplished (Meredith and Mantel 2009). While The Office of Government Commerce
(OGC) defines a project within the PRINCE2 framework as a temporary organization
that is created for the purpose of delivering one or more business products according to an
agreed Business Case (OGC, 2009). Projects are defined as a locus of attention for
strategy implementation and organizational and project learning (Pemsel et al 2014).
From the literature above, it can be understood that each project has its parameters
as time, cost, scope, schedule and quality. In addition, each project has its specific
resources and limitations/constraints such as: definite start and deadline, specific allocated
budget, human resources with variety of skills and knowledge, tools and mechanism,
12

technologies, materials, regulations and laws concerning the environmental and safety
aspects, and finally , but importantly, the shareholders/customers satisfaction. These
factors almost always differ from one project to another and significantly impact on
project type, size, and complexity. Therefore, different projects need different scenarios
of project management processes to achieve project objectives.

2.2

What is Project Management?

Due to the dynamic nature of projects in terms of type, size, and complexity,

project managers face continuous challenges in terms of uncertainties in the industry

environment, financial conditions, political aspects, technological improvements, and
availability of work force and materials for the projects. These uncertainties create
different scenarios for project managers to select and perform an optimal approach in
managing their projects through the project life cycle in which the projects outcomes
align with the organizations objectives. Therefore, understanding project management
knowledge has become the key and essential requirement.
From the literature review of the history of project management, it can be found
that for centuries, project management basically has been used to create change or deal
with change in societies, however, in 1950s, project management was recognized
formally as a distinct contribution arising from the management discipline (Cleland and
Gareis, 2006).
The project management evolution has started as a management philosophy
limited to a few functional areas and considered as a nice thing to have, however, to
13

survive, many organizations within the firm consider project management as being
mandatory and project management has become an important field of study in many
colleges and universities (Kerzner 2009).
For many organizations, in order to satisfy the different needs of application areas
within a variety of industries and organizations, many organizations adopt project
management as an important means to characterize, define, and understand this field to
emphasize strengths, bases, and development (Bredillet, 2006).
According to Roland Garies (1994), there are two main approaches of project
management based on the way in which projects are perceived; first, traditional methodoriented project management approach which is based on the perception of projects as
tasks with special characteristics, and second; systematic and process-oriented project
management approach which is based on the perception of projects as temporary
organizations and as social systems. Project management can be defined as the discipline
of planning, organizing and managing resources to bring about the successful completion
of specific project goals and objectives (Chatfield, 2007).
The PMI, under its publication (PMBOK Guide 5th edition 2013), defines project
management as the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project
activities to meet the project requirements. Also, the PMI PMBOK Guide defines the
project management process groups as:
-

Initiating,

Planning,

Executing,
14

Monitoring and Controlling, and

Closing.
In addition, the PMBOK Guide identifies the project management areas of

knowledge as follows:
-

Project Integration Management,

Project Scope Management,

Project Time Management,

Project Cost Management,

Project Quality Management,

Project Human Resource Management,

Project Communication Management,

Project Risk Management,

Project Procurement Management, and

Project Stakeholders Management

Furthermore, it is significant for organizations to identify, plan, manage, and

control each of the areas of project management knowledge (PMBOK Guide, 2013).

2.3

Organizational Project Management (OPM)

Organizational Project Management (OPM) is the systematic management of

projects, programs, and portfolios in alignment with the achievement of strategic goals
(PMI OMP3 Knowledge Foundation, 2003).
15

OPM is a strategy execution framework utilizing project, program, and portfolio

management as well as organizational enabling practices to consistently and predictably
deliver organizational strategy producing better performance, better results, and a
sustainable competitive advantage (PMI, PMBOK Guide, 2013).
OPM integrates the knowledge of (project, program, and portfolio) management,
organizational strategy (mission, vision, objectives, and goals), people (having competent
resources), and processes (the application of the stages of process improvement) (PMI
OPM3 2013).

2.4

Project Management Office (PMO)

The continuous change in the industry environment creates more challenges for

organizations to survive and gain profit within dynamic competitive environment. For
that, organizations should implement different polices to gain competitive advantageous.
Different policies develop organizational changes within the organizational structure and
organizational context. The significant way to solve issues associated with these changes
is to establish/embed an effective entity within dynamic organization structure which is
known as Project Management Office (PMO) entity (Aubry et al 2010).
Since 1990s, PMO has become a significant and common phenomenon in project
management that many organizations are interested in to improve and sustain as
specialized organizational entity (Hobbs and Aubry 2007).
Dai and Wells (2004) noted that despite adapting project management process
within organizations, many projects fail due to lack of strong project performance,
16

therefore, the key solution is establishing project management office. The PMO, also
known as a center of excellence/experts, is defined as an organizational entity necessity to
support project managers, teams and different management levels within the organization
in successfully implementing project management concepts, tools, and techniques (Dai
and Wells, 2004).
According to the PMI PMBOK Guide (2013), PMO is a management structure
that standardizes the project-related governance processes and facilitates the sharing of
resources, methodologies, tools, and techniques.
PMO can refer to (Portfolio, Program, or Project) management office and can be
defined as an organizational body assigned with various responsibilities related to the
centralized and coordinated management of those projects under its domain. (PMI OPM3
Knowledge Foundation 2013). The range of PMO responsibilities can be from providing
project management support functions to actually being responsible for the direct
management of one or more projects. (PMBOK 2013).
To keep the consistency and alignment between the projects and programs with
the organizations objectives, a PMO can take a delegated role as an essential stakeholder
to decide on significant actions regarding the organizations projects (PMI OMP3, 2013).
Based on PMBOK Guide 2013, a PMOs primary function is to support project
managers in many different ways, such as; developing and managing shared
documentation (project policies, procedures, and templates); coaching, mentoring,
training, and oversight; Managing shared resources across all projects administered by the
PMO; and coordinating communication across projects (PMBOK Guide, 2013).
17

From previous researches and descriptive surveys, posed to number of

organizations regarding the existence of PMOs, the value of PMOs for organizations is
often debatable (Gorshkova E., 2011), as in the following examples;
-

42% of the respondents confirmed that the relevance or even the existence of
the PMO been seriously questioned in their organizations in recent years
(Hobbs et al, 2007).

60% of respondents claimed that the value of PMO being argued by the senior
management, project/program managers, or customers (ESI International,
2011).

41% of respondents from non-PMO staff found role fulfilment by PMOs in

their organizations moderately good or poor (ESI International, 2011).

Based on the degree of control and influence that PMO has on projects within the
organizations, there are several types of PMO structures; supportive, controlling, and
directive in which each type has its own role, deliverables, the service provided to projects,
and the degree of controlling the projects (PMBOK Guide 2013) which can be illustrated
as in Table 1.

18

Table 1. Types of PMO Structures

PMO

PMO

PMO

PMO

Type

Role

Deliverables

Service

Supportive

Consultative - Templates,

PMO
Degree of
Control

Project repository

Low

Project Controls

Moderate

Directing project

High

- Best practices,
- Training,
- Access to information, and
- Lessons learned from other
projects.
Controlling

Controlling

- provide support and require

PMOs

compliance (PM frameworks or

methodologies) through various
means,
- using specific templates,
forms and tools, or
conformance to governance.

Directive

Directing

Directions of projects

PMOs

2.5

controls

Types of Organizations
Organizations ability to deliver projects successfully is influenced by the

organizational

structure

which

determine

the

communication

requirements,

responsibilities, and management reporting structure (PMI PMBOK Guide, 2013). To

manage a project, a company or authority has to set up a project organization, which can
supply the resources for the project and service it during its life cycle (Lester A, 2006).
Kerzner defines three types of organizations as; project-driven, non-project-driven, and
19

hybrid organizations (Kerzner, 2001). While Lester classifies these types as; functional,
matrix, and project or task force (Lester A, 2006).
The PMI PMBOK Guide (2013) explains the three types of the organizations as
follows:
a) Functional organization: is an organizational structure with different
departments that are independent from each other in implementing the project
assigned to each department. Each employee has one clear superior in the
organization hierarchy and the team members are assigned by their specialty at the
top level for different divisions such as engineering, production, marketing, and
accounting.
b) Matrix organization: has characteristics between the functional and projectized
organizations, and relatively it can be classified as weak, balanced, or strong
depending on the level of power and influence between managers of functional
and projectized organizations. The more projectized characteristics the matrix
organization has, the stronger the matrix organization is and vice versa. While the
balance matrix is in between depending on the project management needs of the
power and authority of project managers to balance between the coordination and
administration of the projects.
c) Projectized organization: is an organizational structure with different
departments in which team members are co-located and can report either to the
project manager or support services to the various projects. The project manager
has a great deal of authority and independence. The co-located teams are well
20

collaborative and communicated to obtain the project teams objectives

successfully.

2.6

Project-Based Organizations (PBOs)

This research emphasizes on PBO type to deal with its case study MOCAH as

project-based organization for the assessment and analysis processes. PBO, as explained
in the previous section, is one of the organizational structures that organizations have
depending on the organizational management characteristics regarding to the power,
authority,

and

independence of project

managers

across

the

organizations

departments/divisions.
Based on some studies, the PBO is preferable among many organizations rather
than the functional and matrix organizations assuming that PBO is more suitable for
organization management in terms of increasing product complexity, fast changing
markets, cross-functional business expertise, customer-focused innovation and market,
and technological uncertainty. (Hobday 2000).
According to PMI PMBOK Guide 2013, PBOs is defined as a variety of
organizational forms that involve the creation of temporary systems for the performance
of projects. PBOs conduct the majority of their activities as projects and/or provide project
over functional approaches.

PBOs emphasizes on projects rather than functional

approaches to conduct the majority of their activities to provide more advantages that other
types of organizations. PBOs manage portfolios and resources in a way that ensure high
level of integration, effective communication, more project emphasis (PMI OPM3, 2013).
21

PBO is considered as the ideal type of project organization by which the project
manager has complete control over every aspect of the project (Lester 2006).

2.7

Portfolios, Programs, and Projects

A portfolio refers to a collection of projects, programs, subportfolios, and

operations managed as a group to achieve strategic objectives (PMI PMBOK Guide,

2013). Programs consist of subprograms and individual projects that are managed with
better performance and outcomes than if these projects are managed individually. The
projects within a portfolio may not be included to any programs but are linked to the
strategic plan of the organizations portfolio. Therefore, the relationship between the
programs and projects may not necessarily be interdependent or directly related, however,
they are linked to the strategic plan of the organizations portfolio (PMI PMBOK Guide.
2013). Figure 2 illustrates the relationships between portfolios, programs, and projects.

22

Portfolio

Programs

Subportfolios

Projects

Programs

Projects

Projects

Subprograms

Projects

Subprograms

Projects

Projects

Figure 2. The Relationships between Portfolios, Programs, and Projects

(Modified from PMI OPM3, 2013)

2.8

Maturity Concept and Definition

As the industry environment has seen dramatic change recently and become more

complex, the application of management skills, tools, approaches, techniques, and

technologies become imperative for organizations to increase their efficiency and
productivity. Many organizations nowadays expanded its range of activities to deal with
more than one project to increase its return of investment. In order to sustain and compete
within the dynamic competitive business industry, they improved their organizational
project management continuously to fulfill its strategic objectives.
23

Therefore, to obtain this significant objective, it has become critical for

organizations to continuously assess its organizational management performance by
repeatedly evaluate, measure, standardize, and conduct improvements processes for better
future. By proceeding these imperative steps, the organization can assess its maturity in
terms of project management performance. Accordingly, organizations need to have a
clear understanding of maturity concept.
Many resources (dictionaries and researches) have defined the maturity word in
different ways and perspectives. For instance, the word maturity is defined as the state or
conditions of being mature, ripe, fully developed, and approaching perfection (Websters
dictionary) and having reached the most advanced stage in a process (the Oxford
Dictionary of English Dictionary (ODE 2010), in other words maturity is the quality or
state of being mature.
A maturity is defined as an amalgam of education, ability, confidence and
willingness to take responsibility. (Lester 2006). In general, the concept of maturity, has
been the subject of a tremendous number of studies, and this concept evolved into what is
now known as maturity (Dinson, 2003). To define the maturity to an organization, it can
be refer to a perfect state of the organization to achieve its objectives (Walker et al., 1995).
Maturity is also defined as one of the organizational life cycle phases. In Kerzner
project management maturity model (PMMM), the maturity is the fifth (last) phase of the
life-cycle phases for project management maturity, which are: Embryonic Phase,
Executive Management Acceptance Phase, Line Management Acceptance Phase, and
Maturity Phase (Kerzner 2009). In addition, Kerzner defines project management
24

maturity as maturity as the development of systems and processes that are repetitive in
nature and provide a high probability that each project will be a success.
While in the PMI OPM3 model, the organizational maturity phase is located as the
third phase between four phases as: Birth or Startup, Growth, Mature Operation, and
Decline or evolution. (PMI OPM3, 2013), and the PMI defines the maturity concept as
the degree to which an organization practices organizational project management.
On the other hand, the PMI OPM3 defines the maturity through the existence of
best practices in which a best practice is an optimal way currently recognized by
industry to achieve a stated goal or objective (PMI, 2003).
The project management maturity is the sophisticated level of an organization
which indicates the current organizations project management performance, processes,
and practices (Ibbs and Kwak 2000).
Furthermore, project management maturity is the progressive development of an
enterprise-wide project management approach, methodology, strategy, and decisionmaking process (International Journal of Business Administration 2006).
For any organization to deliver successful projects it is critical to understand the
organizational project management maturity (OPMM) as the level of an organizations
ability to deliver the desired strategic outcomes in a predictable, controllable, and reliable
manner.(PMBOK Guide, 2013).
The maturity level has become an indicator to organizations performance and
efficiency. Based on (Pennypacker, 2002) studies, 30% of mature organizations showed
more than 25% improvement when compared to less mature organizations. Accordingly,
25

it can be concluded that the higher the maturity levels of an organization, the better its
performance in all observed areas (Pennypacker and Grant ., 2006).
According to a study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), 200
respondents reported an average maturity score of 2.5, furthermore, the findings concluded
that the percent of the companies that wished to increase their maturity level was 60% and
71% for those who wanted to increase their level by more than one step (Oforil and Deffor,
2013).Grant and Pennypacker (2006) conducted a survey of 126 organizations from
different industries, the results showed that the median project management model level
is to 2 out of 5 with respect to 36 of the 42 components analyzed. Accordingly, maturity
concept has become a significant process for many organizations seek higher performance
and efficiency to manage their projects successfully with the desired outcomes.
On the other hand, (Andersen and Jessen, 2003), mentioned that there is no fully
matured organization in the real world that has achieved the highest level of developments
and no one will.
Organizations attempt and desire to have higher level of maturity, however, the
process to achieve any desired level of maturity needs the implementation of effective and
suitable standard methodology and processes such that there exists a high likelihood of
repeated successes. (Kerzner, 2009), in other words, the process requires the
implementation of structured approach, known as Maturity Model. (Andersen and
Jessen, 2003).

26

2.9

Maturity Models
A maturity model is a conceptual framework that describes the characteristics of

effective processes in areas as diverse as strategic business planning, business

development, systems engineering, project management, risk management, information
technology (IT) or personnel management (PMI OPM3, 2008).
Project Management Maturity models (PMMMs) provide a systematic means to
perform benchmarking and hence are adding considerable value to contemporary
organizations (Korbel and Benedict, 2008). Previous researches referred the roots of
maturity concepts to the Total Quality Management (TQM) movement in which the results
of applications of the statistical process control techniques showed that in any maturity
improvement process :1) the variability in the process is reduced, and 2) the process
performance is increased ( Cooke-Davies and Arzymanowe, 2003).
As the modern maturity models, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of
Carnage-Mellon University between 1986 and 1993 (Schlichter J. 2003) developed the
Capability Maturity Model (CMM) (which has improved later to CMMI) to obtain the
objectives through continuum improvements by improving the quality of the software
development processes (Paul et al., 1993).
Previous studies showed that there are many types of maturity models that are
developed according to different functions and applications of project management
maturity processes. According to Kohlegger et al (2009), there are over 70 different
maturity models that have different characteristics, therefore, it is significant to have clear

27

understanding of each model before developing or revising it (Kohlegger et al., 2009, cited
by Karim, S.B.A. et al., 2014).
(Karim, S.B.A. et al., 2014) explained that there are 25 examples of maturity
models that are used for the assessment and improvement project management
performance within different organizations and companies, as follows:
1. Automated Software Testing Maturity Model (ASTMM),
2. Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM),
3. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI),
4. Configuration Management Maturity Model,
5. Earned Value Management Maturity Model (EVM3),
6. Information Process Maturity Model (IPMM),
7. Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM),
8. IT Architecture Maturity Model,
9. Information Technology Infrastructure Maturity Model (ITI-MM),
10. IT Service Capability Maturity Model (IT Service-CMM),
11. Operations Maturity Model (OMM),
12. Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3),
13. Outsourcing Management Maturity Model,
14. People Capability Maturity Model

(P-CMM),

15. Performance Engineering Maturity Model

(PEMM),

16. Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3),

17. Program Management Maturity Model,
28

18. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM),

19. Service Integration Maturity Model (SIMM),
20. Risk Management Maturity Model (RMM),
21. Software Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM),
22. Software Reliability Engineering Maturity Model,
23. Testing Maturity Model for Quality Assurance (TMM),
24. Web Services Maturity Model, and
25. Website Maturity Model.
Different project management maturity models (PMMMs) are due to different
sectors, scope, levels, self-assessed, facilitator-led, and accreditation for each model
applied by different organizations with different business activities (Montero G., 2013).
This means that not all PMMMs are the same and not applicable for all companies,
organizations, and firms. Some PMMMs are applicable for software institutes, others for
human capital.
Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) which is developed
by Project Management Institute (PMI), is one of the effective and instrumental PMMMs.
This research has selected OPM3 as the best PMMM that can be more applicable to
conduct the assessment processes and desired improvements for the research case-study
the Kurdistan Region Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH-KRG). In the next
chapter, the OPM3 model is explained in detail to provide clear understanding of the
OPM3 concepts before incorporating the model into the assessment process and future
improvements for MOCAH.
29

3. OPM3 CONCEPTS

3.1

Introduction
For any organization to survive, sustain, and keep on track, it is essential to manage

the potential changes within the organizational structure (internal changes) and the
industry environment (external changes). The internal change has become an imperative
to fulfil the organizational strategic objectives in alignment with the value interests of
variety of disciplines and stakeholders within the organization. Conversely, the external
changes are inevitable due to dynamic competitive environment of the industries, in which
other competitors continuously attempt to gain a competitive advantage to face possible
challenges that may increase the potential threats to the organization.
For successful outcomes from the change management processes, organizations
should implement its strategy successfully, consistently, and predictably, and one of the
best ways to achieve this goal is to adopt an appropriate standard/model, such as
Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3).
In this chapter, the research provides an overview of OPM3 including the OPM3
concepts and definition, the history of OPM3, benefits of OPM3, examples of OPM3
application, OPM3 elements, OPM3 domains, OPM3 processes, OPM3 construct, and
OPM3 assessment tools and processes.

30

3.1.1

What is OPM3?
The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines OPM3 as an acronym for

Organizational Project Management Maturity Model, and it is a standard developed under

the supervision of the PMI. (PMI OPM3, 2003). This standard is an instrumental means
to help organizations to recognize its organizational management and to assess its
organizational project management maturity depending on identified best practices.
OPM3 is an effective way to bridge the gap between the organizational strategy and
successful projects (PMI OPM3 Knowledge Foundation, 2003).
The OPM3 program aims to support organizations to improve the capabilities that
strengthen the enterprise-wide processes used in the domains of Portfolio, Program, and
Project management within the organization in alignment with the strategic objectives
(Kevin P. Grant and James S. Pennypacker, 2006). OPM3 is a significant means to
increase the performance within organizations through a positive relationship between
organizational project management and the performance of the participants in the project.
Incorporating OPM3 into organizational project management processes transforms
the portfolio, program, and project domain processes into high-quality that are well
understood, repeatable and predictable (PMI OPM3, 2003). Comparing OPM3 with other
PMMMs, the PMI indicated that OPM3 is more flexible and scalable than other models
in which any organization can adopt it, regardless of types, sizes, complexity, geographic
location, age, maturity, and other factors (PMI OPM3, 2013).
This means that OPM3 model can be applied for any domain of Project, Program,
or Portfolio (PPP) management and to any level of the process improvements stages;
31

Standardization, Measurement, Control, and Continuous Improvements (SMCI) (PMI,

2013).

3.1.2

The History of OPM3

The history of OPM3 started in 1998 as a story of a team established by the PMI,

in which hundreds of unpaid volunteers from variety of professionals across the world
joined the process to put the first cornerstone to develop an international standard. The
Capability Maturity Model (CMM), developed by the SEI, was the common maturity
model at that time, and the PMI standards teams determined developing such standard and
even better. This standard was considered by the PMIs team as the first of its kind based
on several characteristics that may distinguished this standard/model from other PMMMs.
According to (Schlichter, J. et al. 2003), some of these characteristics are:
-

The OPM3 standard can help organizations to assess and improve their project
management as well as the capabilities necessary to achieve organizational
strategies through projects,

The OPM3 standard as a PMMM to set standard for excellence in project PPP
management best practices and explain the capabilities necessary to achieve
these best practices.

Widespread participation from more professionals across industries and

geographies than any other initiative to develop a maturity model to date.

In 1999, John Schlichter became the Program Director of the OPM3 Program after
he joined the PMI Standards Member Advisory Group (Standards MAG). He assembled
32

a core team called as the Guidance Team which was grouped from 800 of volunteers
across 35 countries to participate in the program and they spent between four to five years
to create the OPM3 standard (Schlichter, J. 2009).
The programs mission was to develop a maturity model that provides methods for
assessing and developing capabilities that enhance an organizations ability to deliver
projects successfully, consistently, and predictably in order to accomplish the strategies of
the organization and improve organizational effectiveness. The leaderships vision was to
create a broadly and willingly validated maturity model that is recognized internationally
as the standard to develop and assess PM Capabilities within any organization (Schlichter,
J. et al., 2003).
The PMI research teams identified 27 PMMMs, accordingly, seventeen sub-teams
were formed to review a representative selection of those models. Based on the results of
sub-teams research, the OPM3 leaderships at the PMI found that there are questions left
unanswered by the existing models regarding project management maturity. Therefore,
the OPM3 would significantly benefit PMIs stakeholders. The main objective of the
research was to develop best practices in project, program, and portfolio management.
These best practices were defined as Capability Statements and Outcomes Statements.
In the earlier stages of emerging OPM3 standard, the Self-Assessment Module
(SAM), (as known as OPM3 Online assessment tool), was used by many organizations
and companies for assessment OPMM. However, the SAM (OPM3 Online) was no more
used because of some problems, as Schlichter mentioned:

33

The users of OPM3 Online tool had to answer about 150 questions including
project, program, and portfolio management at the same time which could not
be emphasized on a specific area required to be assessed and improved.

OPM3 Online questions only allowed simple Yes or No answers which

could not give partial credit for partially implemented best practices.

Therefore, the second OPM3 assessment tool was developed as (OPM3

ProductSuite). This tool is more flexible and applicable than the OPM3 Online tool and
it helps the organization to determine actual maturity per the Capability-Outcomes of the
OPM3 Standard. Thus, select specific area for assessment and improvement without
conducting the process through the entire areas of project management improvements
across the organization.
The PMI has published the first edition of OPM3 standard as Project Management
Maturity Model (OPM3) Knowledge Foundation in 2003, the second edition in 2008, and
the third edition in 2013. In these publications, the PMI incorporated the knowledge from
its most famous publication of Project Management Book of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK
Guide), which has five versions/editions (the 1st edition was published in 1987, and the 5th
in 2013).
The OPM3 standard helps organizations to improve organizational project
management for project, program, and portfolio by translate strategy into successful
outcomes in a consistent and predictable manner through its three key elements;
1) Knowledge element,
2) Assessment element, and
34

3) Improvement element

3.1.3

What Does OPM3 Do?

(PMI OPM3, 2003) indicated that OPM3 application effectively supports

organizations to increase its efficiency and PM performance by:

-

Integrating the cooperative knowledge of the OPM community from a varied

assortment of businesses and different locations,

Recognizing and forming generally accepted and proven OPM practices,

Support organizations to evaluate its current maturity and how to step for
higher level of maturity in the future,

Developing a framework to assess organizations practices compared to

OPM3 Best Practices,

Developing a guideline based on the assessment results to guide organizations

to achieve further improvements, and

Supporting organizational decision making to be ready for any potential

changes.

3.1.4

OPM3 Benefits
OPM3 application significantly benefits organizations, senior management, and

participants in the PM processes through wide range of benefits (PMI OPM3, 2013) as in
the followings:
-

Enhance the relationship between organization strategy and project execution,

35

3.1.5

Deliver projects predictably and reliably,

Increase organization efficiency,

Improve PM performance,

Increase productivity,

Increase profitability,

Decrease cost and rework,

Increase market share,

Improve customer satisfaction and,

Provide competitive advantage.

OPM3 Purpose
The main purpose of OPM3 is to ensure that:
-

The organization carries out the right projects and allocates resources
properly,

There is a clear understanding of the linkages between strategic vision, the

initiatives that support the vision, and the objectives and deliverables to be
achieved by portfolios of programs and projects, and

3.2

The stakeholders interests are aligned with market demands.

OPM3 Previous Case Studies (Examples)

Before implementing any new approach, tool, or standard, it is crucial for the

organization to conduct comprehensive studies/researches to validate the existent

36

standards, approaches, and tools based on the findings of previous similar case studies.
Therefore, the organizations managers should determine whether their organization can
carry out the process or not by undertaking some important steps as follows:
-

Recognize the background of other organizations (case studies) to be

compared with the organization,

They should identify the main reasons that stood behind the application of the
desired approach by those organizations, and

Evaluate the available alternatives to select the best one based on the results
of the previous examples.

Therefore, it is significant for MOCAH managers to recognize and identify the

previous results that other organizations achieved after implementing OPM3 approach in
there organizational project management processes to assess and improve the OPMM.
Through the literature review of OPM3 conducted by this research, there were
several of organizations and industries from different countries around the world applied
OPM3 standard. They found OPM3 as an effective approach to assess their organizations
current project management maturity and utilized OPM3 as a significant framework for
continuous improvements in the future.
Some examples, as in Table 2, are given in this research to explain the application
of OPM3 and its results in terms of the assessment and improvements processes for
organizational project management maturity. Furthermore, the research illustrates the
OPM3 improvement cycle to help organizations how to prepare for assessment processes,

37

perform assessment, plan for improvements, implement improvements, and repeat the
process for continuous improvements.

Table 2. Examples of OPM3 Application by other Companies

Name of the
#

Company/ Case

Reference

Study
1

The Washington
Savannah River
Co. (WSRC),
Headquartered in
Boise, Idaho, USA.

OPM3 CASE STUDY OPM3 ProductSuite in Action: Savannah River

Site.

Shanghai Airport
Authority

Application of Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)

to Construction in China: An Empirical Study,

http://opm3online.pmi.org

2008 International Conference on Information Management, Innovation

Management and Industrial Engineering
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232629214
3

Honk Kong MNCs

OPM3 In Honk Kong MNCs.

http://www.knowledgecentury.com/download/opm3_050607_hkcs.pdf

IProcure Systems
Inc. (ISI),

Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3): A Case Study

Sanjay Desai, GE Corporate, USA; Jakov Crnkovic, University at Albany
(SUNY), Albany, New York, USA; EPeter Ross, University at Albany (SUNY), Albany, New York, USA;
http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/33338/

Siemens Corporate
Technology

Accelerating Organizational Project Management Maturity At Siemens.

http://www.mundopm.com.br/eventos/ipemac/ppt/kevin05.pdf

38

Table 2. Contd
Name of the
#

Company/ Case

Reference

Study
6

Ministry of
Interior, Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia

Transforming the Project Management Culture within the Ministry of Interior

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Ambithus, Lisboa,
Portugal

Project Management Institute (PMI), Organizational Project Management

Maturity Model (OPM3) 2013 Third Edition

Mapna Special
Projects
Construction, Iran

Project Management Institute (PMI), Organizational Project Management

Maturity Model (OPM3) 2013 Third Edition

http://www.opmexperts.com/opm3_national_security.pdf

In the following sections, the research provides detail about two of these examples
explaining the company background, problems and challenges, solutions, and the
assessment results.

3.2.1
3.2.1.1

Example 1: The Washington Savannah River Co. (WSRC).

Background
With more than $3 billion in annual revenue and around 24,000 people,

Washington Group headquartered in Boise, Idaho, USA. It has multiple projects around
the world in variety of projects; power, defense, oil and gas processing, environmental
management, industrial facilities, transportation and water resources. Its subsidiary the
Washington Savannah River Co. (WSRC), has been selected as the first pilot project
volunteer.
39

The leaders of the company has step toward achieving a strategic goal to align
business results with the organization strategy through internal initiatives driven by project
managers. To achieve this goal, OPM3 standard and OPM3 ProductSuite was conducted.
In March 2006, the process was started by forming a team of four trained persons,
trained under PMI Certied OPM3 Assessor certication program. The main objective of
the process was to assess the OPMM by incorporating OPM3 ProductSuite methodology
and tools, and thereby evaluate the findings of the assessment process (PMI OPM3, 2006).

3.2.1.2

Challenges
Technical, scope management, cost and schedule, difficulty in achieving best

practices in traditional project areas, and inappropriate to apply PM to general operational

tasks were addressed as the main challenges for WSRC to apply PM principle to improve
efciency and meet strategic goals.

3.2.1.3

Solutions
To solve these problems/challenges, the assessment team employed OPM3

methodology to support WSRC analysis of its OPMM and how to apply PPP management
principles (knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques) and best practices to obtain its
objectives. However, there were some barriers that restricted the robustness of the
assessment and impacted the scope of the assessment, such as; limited time for the
assessment, limited number of assessors to conduct the assessment, and the available
version of OPM3 ProductSuite was under development at the assessment. Accordingly,
40

the process scope included the stages; (standardize, measure, control, and improvement)
and two domains of OPM3; (project management and program management) but excluded
the portfolio management domain (PMI OPM3, 2006).

3.2.1.4

Results
The maturity degree for WSRC, in general, was very high and the results of the

assessment can be illustrated as in Table 3.

Table 3.Assessment Results for WSRC

Maturity
#

Assessment Area / Domain

Degree %

Sites Organizational Enablers (benchmarking, benchmarking, executive

sponsorship, knowledge management, resource allocation, strategic alignment,
project management training and metrics)

97

Project Management

97

Program Management

94

Portfolio Management

Not Included

41

3.2.2
3.2.2.1

Example 2: Shanghai Airport Authority

Background
As an organization, Shanghai Airport Authority (SAA) was established by the

Municipal Government of Shanghai in charge of the construction and utilization of

Pudong International Airport. It has undertaken the entire design and operation of both
Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 of Pudong International Airport. The main goal of SAA wasto
make Shanghai airport the most attractive core air hub in Asia-Pacific region, become
world-class airport operator and ascend to the most valuable airport company. 1
OPM3 standard was used as a desirable model to assess Shanghai Pudong
International Airport Construction Project and its management organizations, including
Terminal, Flight, Aviation Control, supporting facilities, and Oil Supply (Gungshe J. et
al., 2008).

3.2.2.2

Challenges
Despite the significant efforts have been made in PM regarding the theoretical

research and incorporating the theory into practice in China, there are many challenges on
the local market as China was starting to integrate project management techniques into
construction. (Guangshe J. et al., 2008). Accordingly, the large-scale construction projects
in China needs: 1) standardization, 2) governance, and 3) acceptable PM experience.

The information was adapted from the official website of Shanghai Airport Authority;
(http://en.shairport.com/2012-05/26/content_15888467.htm).

42

3.2.2.3

Solutions
The application of OPM3 to SAA used to assess the feasibility and challenges to

implement the OPM3 standard and to suggest a model to match the large-scale
construction projects with Chinese characteristics. To achieve this goal, the SAA project
managers should determine:
-

Understanding of OPM3 basic concepts in order to prepare for the assessment

of SSAs OPMM against the OPM3 best practices,

Understanding OPM3 concepts as a whole package, and

Providing support to be familiarized with the OPM3 assessment process.

On the other hand, the OPM3 assessor should have clear understanding about the
SSA organization background, structure, and processes to be compared with OPM3
concepts, PPP domains, and assessment processes.
Based on that, the questionnaire and the surveys were developed in a suitable way
to be more practical and acceptable by the stakeholders and participants in the OPM3
assessment process.

3.2.2.4

Results
After the assessment process has been conducted, many reports were provided as

the results of the maturity assessment of SSA organization, and the summary of the
findings can be explained as in Table 4.

43

Table 4. Assessment Results for SAA

(Adapted from Guangshe J. et al., 2008)
Maturity Degree %
Domain
Standardize

Measure

Control

Improvement

Project

69.25

60.5

54.25

46.875

Program

66.125

58

50.5

42.465

Portfolio

42.375

29.625

16.625

7.785

In summary, based on the results of the two examples discussed before (but not
limited to), the OPM3 standard has become one of the remarkable models to assess the
project management maturity levels for any organizations regardless of the types, sizes,
complexity, geographic location. And it can be used for the assessment process for any
domain of; project, program, or portfolio management, and to any process improvement
stages; standardize, measure, control, and improvements (SCMI) (PMI OPM3, 2013).

3.3

OPM3 Key Elements

OPM3 consists of three key elements:

44

3.3.1

Knowledge
Presents the contents of OPM3 including an executive summary, a narrative

explanation to understand organizational project management, definition and application

toward organizational management maturity, terms of OPM3 standard, OPM3 steps,
OPM3s appendices, glossary, and indices. (PMI OPM3, 2003).

3.3.2

Assessment
Supports the organization to assess its current organizational project management

and organizational project management maturity to be compared with OPM3 standard.

3.3.3

Improvement
After conducting the assessment process, the organization can identify new set of

Capabilities which supports the organization to form a basis of plans for future
improvements.

3.4

OPM3 Domains
According to the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the PMBOK Guide,

the organizational project management can be divided into three domains as following:

45

3.4.1

Project Management Domain

The basic domain of OPM3 is the Project Management Domain which deals with

individual projects. Two or more projects can comprise the second domain as Program
Management Domain.

3.4.2

Program Management Domain

OPM3 context defines a program as a group of related projects managed in a

coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them
individually.

3.4.3

Portfolio Management Domain

A portfolio domain is comprised of a group of programs, projects, and other work

grouped together to provide effective management to achieve the organizational objectives

successfully, consistently, and predictably.

3.5

Organizational Project Management Processes

PMBOK Guide - Chapter 3, explains that the project management domain

consists of five process groups as follows:

1) Initiating Process Group (PG1)
2) Planning Process Group (PG2)
3) Executing Process Group (PG3)
4) Monitoring and Controlling Process Group (PG4)
46

5) Closing Process Group (PG5)

3.6

OPM3 Best Practices

The PMI defines a Best Practice as an optimal way currently observed by industry

to achieve stated goal or objective. For organizational project management this includes
the ability to deliver projects predictably, consistently, and successfully to implement
organizational strategies.

3.6.1
3.6.1.1

Best Practice Constituent Components

Capabilities
A Capability can be defined as a specific competency that helps an organization to

execute project management processes and deliver projects management services and
products. The existence of successful Outcomes is important to determine Capabilities, by
which two or more Capabilities are aggregated to make one Best Practice (PMI, 2008).

3.6.1.2

Outcomes
The application of a Capability leads to number of tangible or intangible

Outcomes.

47

3.6.1.3

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The Outcomes that are created by the application of a Capability can be determined

either quantitatively or qualitatively by a criterion called Key Performance Indicator

(KPI).

3.7

OPM3 Improvement Stages (SMCI)

The OPM3 improvement stages are recognized by the PMI as four main stages:
1. Standardization,
2. Measurement,
3. Control, and
4. Improvement
These are the stages that each organization should obtain them stage after stage to

achieve desired improvement for the organizational management processes.

The Capabilities follow the process improvement path of Standardize, Measure,
Control, and Continuously Improvement (SMCI).Organizational Enablers (OE) Best
Practices: the Capabilities DO NOT follow the SMCI process improvement path (PMI
OPM3, 2008).

3.8

Organizational Enablers (OEs) Best Practices

They are (Structural, Cultural, Technological, and Human-resource) practices that

can be leveraged to support and sustain the implementation of Best Practices (PMI OPM3,
2013).
The PMI OPM3, 2013 categorizes the OEs as follows:
48

3.9

Sponsorship,

Governance,

Benchmarking,

Strategic Alignment,

Organizational Project Management Policy and Vision,

Organizational Project Management Techniques,

Organizational Project Management Methodology,

Organizational Project Management Practices,

Organizational Project Management Communities,

Resource Allocation,

Project Success Criteria,

Project Management Metrics,

Organizational Structures,

Management Systems,

Project Management Training,

Competency Management,

Individual Performance Appraisals,

Knowledge Management and Project Management Information System (PMIS)

Dependencies and Interrelationships among OPM3 Components

The PMI concluded that organizational project management maturity is increased

by achieving the SMCIs Best Practices within the project management domains of
49

projects, programs, and portfolios, supported by the Organizational Enablers (OEs) Best
Practices.

3.10

OPM3 Maturity Assessment Tools

The PMI developed two different tools to assess current state of maturity of an

organization and then use the results of this assessment to improve the organization
maturity stage in the future. These two assessments tools are explained as follows:
1) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) also known as (OPM3 Online) assessment
tool.
2) OPM3 ProductSuite assessment tool.

3.10.1 SAM/ OPM3 Online

When the PMI research teams developed OPM3 standard in 2003, it provided the
Self-Assessment Module (SAM). First, the tool was offered as a CD accompanying the
book of OPM3 Knowledge Foundation- First Edition-2003. Later, it was offered as an
online process via the Internet and was known as OPM3 Online 2. The process consists
of (151) questions to be answered only by Yes or No as depicted in Figure 3.

http://opm3online.pmi.org/demo/wheretofocus.shtml

50

Figure 3. OPM3 Online Self-Assessment

The PMIs experts realized that the (SAM) or OPM3 Online was ineffective tool
for assessing and implementing OPM3. Therefore, PMI withdrew the OPM3 Online
assessment tool and reverted to the better tool created in 2005, which is called (OPM3
ProductSuite).

3.10.2 OPM3 ProductSuite Assessment Tool

As an effective tool to better assess and develop an organizations maturity, PMI
aided by a strategic partnership, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) a Norwegian Company,
developed the (OPM3 ProductSuite) assessment tool to be used as an effective tool to
assess and improve organizations maturity. It has three elements; certification, tools, and
services. OPM3 ProductSuite is a combination of advanced tools that achieve the
51

Standards original intention of assessing organizations in terms of the capabilities and

outcomes that are in the best practice buckets. (Schlichter J., 2009).
The OPM3 ProductSuite consists of 488 Best Practices (BPs) and 412 of them are
pertained to the Standardization, Measurement, Control, and Continuous Improvement of
the (Project, Program, and Portfolio) Management Processes. Each domain has its specific
number of processes (42, 47, 13) respectively. And each process requires (15) CapabilityOutcomes, in which all together producing (1,530) Capability-Outcome statement as in
Figure 4.

Figure 4. OPM3 ProductSuite and Capability-Outcome Statements

52

3.11

OPM3 Improvement Cycle

For an organization to apply the OPM3 standard, it is very important to understand

the fundamental steps of OPM3 assessment and improvement stages. The PMI has
indicated that the main steps for assessment and improvement are five steps;
1) Prepare for Assessment,
2) Perform Assessment,
3) Plan for Improvements,
4) Implement Improvements, and
5) Repeat the Process.

53

4. KURDISTAN REGION
MINISTRY OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING

4.1

Introduction
The Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH) is one of the significant and

vital ministries within the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). It has evolved from
the combination of two previous ministries established in 1992: Ministry of
Reconstruction and Development and Ministry of Work and Housing, and was unified in
2004 as the (Ministry of Construction and Housing).

Because of the destruction and harmful policies of the previous Iraqi regimes, the
condition of Kurdistan Regions infrastructure was at the lowest level. More than 4,500
towns, districts, and villages were destroyed by Saddam Hossain regime who arrested and
killed most of the people in what was so-called Anfal Campaigns, Halabja chemical
bombing, and other genocide campaigns across Kurdistan. These destruction policies left
thousands of displaced people with no houses, schools, hospitals, and other necessary
infrastructure and facilities, such as; water supply, sewerage, and roads and bridges.
Therefore, the task of MOCHA was very difficult in its first stages of emergence in 2004
to answer the enormous urgent requirements which led to unsatisfied results due to lack
of strategy, insufficient budget, and poor quality control of the projects.

Kurdistan Regional Government, Ministry of Construction and Housing-KRG, http://www.krgmocah.net/awapages.php?pageID=7

54

4.2

Kurdistan Region and Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Background

The word Kurdistan literally means the Land of the Kurds. Kurdistan

Region or Southern Kurdistan, is the southern part of a great Kurdistan which consists of
three other parts in Iran to the east, Syria to the west, and Iraq in the south. The great
Kurdistan was divided into four main parts after the SykesPicot Agreement was assigned
between the United Kingdom and France during the World War One in May 1916.
Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is the local government of the Kurdistan
Region of Iraq. It has been established after 1991 and has been recognized by Iraqi
Government after 2003 as the local government of the Kurdistan Region.
The Kurdistan Region consists of the cities of Erbil (the Capital of Kurdistan
Region), Kirkuk, Sulaimani, Dohuk, and Halabja. However, Kirkuk city and may other
parts (known as disputed areas), are still out of the KRGs authority and it is
administratively related to the central government of Iraq, which creates several problems
between KRG and Iraqi government. Some other information about Kurdistan Region can
be summarized as follows:
-

Area: Approximately 50,000 Km2 (including Kirkuk and other parts).

Population: 8.35 million (2013).

Official Language: Kurdish and Arabic.

Natural Resources: Petroleum, natural gas, phosphates, sulphur, and agriculture.

Political Structure: Parliamentary Democracy, Presidency, and Council of

Ministries (KRG).

55

Kurdistan Region map, Kurdistan Flag and Kurdistan Regional Government Arm
are shown in Figure 5, and more information can be found at the official website
of KRG http://www.krg.org/?l=12

Figure 5. Figure. Kurdistan Flag, KRG Arm, and Kurdistan Region Map 4

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan#/media/File:Autonomous_Region_Kurdistan_en.png

56

4.3

The Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH)

4.3.1

Introduction
As one of the vital and significant ministries in the Kurdistan Regional

Government, the Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH) has been established
after 1992.
The physical destruction and harmful policies of Iraqi regimes undermined the
infrastructure in the Kurdistan Region. More than 4,500 villages were destroyed by
Saddam Hussein regime including thousands of schools, clinic centers, roads, and all other
facilities. Thousands of Kurdish people were killed in several genocide campaigns and
thousands were displaced to live in coercive residential complexes under lower level of
fundamental services.
After 1992, MOCAHs first and urgent task was to rehabilitate the displaced
families and reconstruct of thousands of unit houses, schools, and health centers and
renovate and construct hundreds of miles of roads with number of bridges. The economic
situation in Kurdistan Region was insufficient to cover all the demands and, thereby to
achieve MOCAH strategic goals in terms of high quality projects.
After the collapse of Iraqi regime in 2003, MOCAH was tasked to answer the
enormous urgent infrastructure development and construction requirements. MOCAH
achieved many considerable goals concerning the construction and highway projects
compared with the decades before 2003. Thousands of unit houses, schools, hospitals,
clinic centers, and governmental buildings and facilities were built. Hundreds miles of
different types of roads and highways were constructed and number of bridges were
57

established. MOCAH, however, is challenged by organizational and project management

issues including:
-

Lack of organizational and project strategies,

Insufficient budget, and

Poor quality controls.

The current structure and operational procedures of MOCAH is not optimal to

successfully deliver current and future infrastructure needs of the Kurdistan Region.
Therefore, the main objective of this research is to incorporate OPM3 standards and
practices as a roadmap to enhance MOCAH organizational and project performance by:
-

The assessment of MOCAH organizational project management processes

and its current organizational project management maturity status, then

Using the results of the assessment to plan for more improvement, which
in turn, delivers projects successfully, predictably, and reliably.

4.3.2

MOCAHs Vision, Mission, and Strategic Plan

Based on the interview conducted by The Report Company with Mr. Kamaran

Ahmed, the former minister of MOCAH-KRG, after 2010, MOCAH has passed the
primary stages of its evolution (from 2003 to 2010) and started to set its vision, mission,
and strategic plan to step forward to act more effectively and improve its performance as
well. The ministry has two major activities:
-

Construction of roads, highways and bridges, and

58

4.3.2.1

Construction of unit houses and public buildings.

MOCAH Vision
Safe Roads and High Quality Buildings.

4.3.2.2

MOCAH Mission

4.3.2.3

Construction of two-way roads, express ways, bridges, and tunnels,

Construction of modern high quality building and services, and

Construction of best unit houses for Kurdistan Region civilians.

MOCAH Strategic Plan

The MOCAH started to set its strategic plan for twenty years to construct advanced

highways and build high quality unit houses for the residence throughout the Kurdistan
Region. According to MOCAHs master plan, the ministry emphasis will be on two main
activities:
-

Construction of (5,000) five thousands unit houses of estimated budget of

$ 250 million each year, and

Construction of advanced highways, tool roads, bridges, and tunnels

throughout Kurdistan Region of around $ 1 billion each year.

Table 5 shows a summary of MOCAH plan for proposed roads for 2015-2030

59

Table 5. Planned Roads Projects (2015-2030)

Planned

Budget
No of

Length

Project

Completion
Intervention

Lanes

Km

Governorate
$US

Year

ID

Name
Million

R (01105)

Total

- Single,
- Dual 2
Lanes,
and
- Dual 3
Lanes

New Roads

2015-2030

2406.7

Erbil,
Sulaimani,
and
Dohuk

8927.6

As a total length roads proposed 2,406.7 Km with an estimated total cost of

approximately $US 9 billion are planned by MOCAH to be constructed starting from 2015
and ending in 2030. (Appendix B).
Regarding the construction of bridges, Table 6 shows a summary of proposed
bridges planned by MOCAH for 2015-2030. (Appendix C).

60

Table 6. Proposed Bridges (2015-2030)

Crossing
Proposed

Proposed

Completion
Dam

Bridge ID

River

Bridge Name

Governorate Name
Year

Width ml

Bridge
B(01-21)
B01- B21

4.3.3

Bekhma,
Gomaspan
TaqTaq,
Khewata,
and
Mandawa

Erbil, Sulaimani, and

20-75

205-230
Dohuk

MOCAH Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS)

Based on the organizational breakdown structure (OBS) of MOCAH, it can be

considered as a complex and hierarchical organization by which the three main OPM3
domains (Projects, Programs, and Portfolios) can be recognized within the ministrys
structure. Figure 6 MOCAH OBS 1, and Figure 7 MAOCAH OBS 2 illustrate the
construct of MOCAHs organizational structure.

61

From figures 6 and 7, the hierarchy of MOCAH can be summarized as follows:

1. His Excellency, the Minister,
2. Two deputy ministers:
-

Deputy 1 for Roads and Bridges,

Deputy 2 for Housing and Public Buildings.

3. Consultant Engineers,
4. Five Director Generals (DGs):
-

DG of Roads and Housing - Erbil City,

DG of Roads and Housing - Sulaimani City,

DG of Roads and Housing - Dohuk City,

DG of Administration and Finance, and

DG of Technician.

62

Figure 6. MOCAH OBS 1

63

Figure 7. MOCAH OBS 2

64

4.3.4 MOCAH Size (Employees Number)

From the number of employees in MOCAH, it can be determined as a big-size
organization. Table 7 illustrates the total number and different positions of MOCAHs
employees.

Table 7. Number and Positions of MOCAH's Employees

Total
#

Description
No.

1-

Total number of employees with master, high diploma and bachelor degrees in general

2-

Total number of engineers in all professions (civil, mechanical, electricity, agriculture,

architecture, roads, chemical, soil, nuclear, irrigation and so on) with master, high

1692

1162

diploma and bachelor degree

3-

Total number of road, civil and construction engineers with master, high diploma and
689
bachelor degree

4-

Total number of road, civil and construction engineers in Erbil governorate with master,
263
high diploma and bachelor degree

5-

Total number of road, civil and construction engineers in Sulaimani governorate with
293
master, high diploma and bachelor degree

6-

Total number of road, civil and construction engineers in Dohuk governorate with
133
master, high diploma and bachelor degree

65

4.4

SWOT Analysis and MOCAH

4.4.1

SWOT Analysis
SWOT Analysis is an effective approach which can be used to assess the Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of any organization to measure its current

situations and provide awareness to the organizations owner to achieve the organizational
objectives. Figure 8 shows the main elements of the approach by which an analyst can
recognize the strength and weaknesses as internal factors (within the organization) and the
opportunities and threats as external factors (environmental factors). In addition, the
strengths and opportunities are considered as positive factors, while the weaknesses and
threats as negative factors.

66

Figure 8. SWOT Analysis Elements

(Adapted from Business model. Strategy diagram. Business strategy chart. SWOT template)

4.4.2

MOCAH Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

The main objective to conduct the SWOT analysis for MOCAH is to provide a

general background of the organization in terms of its strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats.
In order to conduct the SWOT analysis to determine MOCAHs strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, it is essential to have the fundamental data and
information regarding the internal factors within the organization, and external factors,
environmental factors. The data was collected from different resources.
67

The main important internal data was collected from senior managers, senior
engineers, administration departments, information technology (IT) department, the
official website of MOCAH, and the documented interview with the former minister of
MOACH. For example, the Vison, Mission, Strategic Plan, MOCAH OBS, Roads and
Bridges projects planned for 2015-2030, number of employees,.etc. , were collected via
emails with the Deputy Minister (Agreen A. Aziz), and the DG of Technique affairs and
planning (Zana Mustafa Uzeri), the senior engineer (Sanaw Faridon Mohammed) and
other senior engineers and managers from different departments within MOCAH, and the
documented interview of The Report Company with the former minister of MOCAH.
The external data was collected from the MOCAHs resources and from other
resources out of MOCAH, such as the information about the monitoring and assessment
of the projects. One of the most important resource for the monitoring and assessment
process is the Projects Follow-up Department-KRG Council of Ministries (Nariman
Kaksour Awla), which has a significant role to monitor and control the quality of overall
projects in Kurdistan Regional Governments ministries and organizations, including
MOCAH.
Based on the collected data about MOCAH, the research conducted a SWOT
analysis as in the followings:

68

4.4.2.1
-

MOCAH Strengths
KRG Supports: as an entity of the KRG government, MOCAH is supported by
the government by providing human resources, financial resource, technological,
and legal supports.

Wide Relationships: with other organizations (KRG ministries, UN

organizations, international and local NGOs, and Universities and Scientific
institutions) that can support MOCAH in terms of communications, exchanging
information, training, conducting surveys, analysis, and researches.

Organizational Breakdown Structure: which provides wide range of areas to be

assessed as Projects, Programs, and Portfolios Management.

Wide range of experts and professionals: in different levels and disciplines that
might form a flexibility to manage potential changes.

4.4.2.2
-

MOCAH Weaknesses
Lack of Organizational Management Practices: since MOCAH was established
recently, in 2004, it has no enough experience in the field of organizational project
management.

Lack of Expertise in Design Process: MOCAH design departments needs more

experts in designing its projects by expert designers using advanced new
technologies and design tools and software.

Lack of Organizational Project Management (OPM) Standards required for

assessment and improvement organization management processes.
69

Lack of Advanced Technologies: the information Technology system of

MOCAH still needs more advancement and supports either by providing new
instruments and equipment. Furthermore, MOCAH needs to improve the (IT)
departments in all its arms, general directories, directories, and divisions with both
new electronic device (computers and processors) and IT experts.

Lack of Heavy Machines and Equipment: the current machines and equipment
are not sufficient in terms of quality and quantity to support the process of projects
execution.

Insufficient Budget: as a part of the Kurdistan Regional Government, MOCAH

main budget comes from Iraqi federal government, which is unfortunately not
sufficient much times, and even it has been cut by Iraqi government recently (from
February 2014 till preparing this research). Accordingly, insufficient budget
severely impacts MOCAHs organizational capabilities to step forward for more
improvements.

Lack of Research and Development (R&D) Department: despite the existence

of number of senior engineers with high education in different engineering
disciplines within MOCAH and from Kurdistan Regions universities and
academic institutes, there is no specific department by which necessary researches
can be conducted continuously for continuous development.

Bureaucracy and Routine: in the daily transactions among MOCAH

stakeholders and other government organizations. The long documentation
processes conducted by traditional ways (papers, routines, and reworks) against
70

electronic means hinder the daily transactions, exchanging information, following

up, and decision making processes in a rate that cause more delays and thereby
delay damages.
-

Lack of Motivation: provided by MOCAH to its staff and low salaries for the
senior managers and experts compared to private sectors and international
organizations in the region. For instance, the average annual base salary for a civil
engineer employed in MOCAH is about $12,500 while in Turkey is around
$34,700. 5

4.4.2.3
-

MOCAH Opportunities
KRG Investment in Oil and Gas Sector: the KRG started to explore and trade in
oil and gas sector which opens doors to an independent economy from central
government of Iraq which always creates unstable economic situation in Kurdistan
Region.

Training and Scholarships: provided by the KRG to tens of MOCAH employees

to study abroad in advanced universities in USA, Europe, Australia, Canada,
Japan, South Korea, and other countries in variety of fields , including Engineering
and Project Management.

KRG Investment Law: which attracts more Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) with
its very flexible and supportive articles that provide international investors a wide

http://www.payscale.com/research/TR/Country=Turkey/Salary

71

range of benefits in many sectors in Kurdistan Region, which in turn, can provide
MOCAH to establish new relationships with international organizations that can
help MOCAH to improve its strategies and organizational objectives. 6
-

MOCAH Master Plan: will provide the ministry with more opportunities to
establish new projects through the fifteen years planned from 2015 to 2030, which
includes thousands of mile of roads and highways with number of bridges overall
Kurdistan Region, as explained in previous sections.

4.4.2.4
-

MOCAH Threats
Political Conditions: the unstable political situations in the region adds more
threats against economic stability of KRG which in turn affect negatively on
MOCAHs activities and processes, especially after the terror attacks by what is
called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The war with ISIS enforced millions
of people in Iraq and Syria to leave their origin areas and most of them fled to the
Kurdistan Region as the safest area in the region. More than two millions of
refugees were settled in Kurdistan Region which added more pressure on the KRG
including MOCAH. The consequences were to add more demands of MOCAHs
tasks to provide emergency projects and facilities to the huge number of refugees.

The Official Website of the Kurdistan Board of Investment, http://www.kurdistaninvestment.org/

72

Furthermore, the relationship with Iraqi government was not stable and not
supportive to support KRGs policies including MOCAHs polices regarding the
construction activities.
-

Poor Communication and Coordination: among MOCAH and other KRGs

entities. Although MOCAH has a wide relationships with other KRG
organizations, UNs agencies, and International and local NGOs, the
communication and coordination are still not sufficient, which adds potential risk
of delays, inconsistency between MOCAH plans and KRGs and other
organizations plans and activities that need to be done parallel to MOCAHs
projects.

High Rate of Salaries Competition: high rate of salaries provided by local and
international organizations to same employees who have the positions and
responsibilities (as mentioned in weaknesses above), by which attracts MOCAH
experts, senior engineers and managers to work out of MOCAH. Accordingly will
increase the potential lack of skilled and professional management teams within
MOCAHs organizational management system.

Poor Monitoring and Control system: from the data provided by the expert
engineer, Nariman Kakasur Awla from the Project Follow-up Department, KRG,
the monitoring and control process for MOCAH process is poor and not effective
to cover all the projects executed / under execution due to number of reasons, as
follows:

73

Most of the projects start late and therefore stay behind the planned
completion date which leads to delay damages and cost overrun due to
poor control process through project stages.

Ineffective respond to monitoring reports in which monitoring teams

explain the problems in project stages to be discussed and solved at time.

High rate of change orders during the execution stage of the projects,
which leads to more delays and cost overrun.

Poor communication and coordination between executive teams and

follow up/ monitoring teams which cause inconsistency and conflicts
between projects parties.

Lack of advance quality controls labs to control the quality of materials.

Lack of experience in bidding projects and contracting processes which

cause potential risks of conflicts between the MOCAH, as the Owner, and
the contractors.

74

5. INCORPORATE OPM3 INTO MOCAH

5.1

Introduction
MOCAH as a complex, large, and hierarchical organization with the challenges

and tasks as discussed in section 4, needs to be assessed and continuously improved to

increase its organizational maturity in terms of the domains of Project, Program, and
Portfolio management. The research explains how to incorporate the OPM3 concepts,
elements, and components to support MOCAH to assess its current organizational project
management maturity and help Program/Project Management Office (PMO) of MOCAH
to develop an effective progress improvement path that can help the leaderships and senior
managers within MOCAH to identify the Best Practices with its constituent Capabilities
to push the organization for future improvements.
Section 4 provided an understanding of MOCAHs vision, mission, strategic plans,
MOCAHs organizational breakdown structure (OBS), and MOCAHs SWOT analysis to
determine MOCAHs current Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and potential Threats
as (general background) of MOCAH.
Section 3 provided details about OPM3 components concerning its elements
(Knowledge, Assessment, and Improvement), Domains (Projects, Programs, and
Portfolios), Best Practices (BPs), Capabilities, Outcomes, Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs), Improvement Stages (Standardize, Measure, Control, and continuously
Improvement-SMCI),

and

Organizational

Technological, and Human-Resource).

75

Enablers

(OEs-Structural,

Cultural,

MOCAHs activities are guided by a cross-functional board of directors consists

of two deputy ministers, five general directors, several consultants and advisors. The board
of directors has regular monthly meeting to direct the ministry activities and set the
strategic plan and identify the main organizational objectives. While the general directors
supervise the implementation of the strategies by directing the project management
processes. The MOCAHs OBS was illustrated in the previous section in detail.
A conceptual model of MOCAHs OBS in relation to the OPM3 Domains
(Projects, Programs, and Portfolio) assists the analysis. Figure 9 illustrates how MOCAHs
OBS can be represented in terms of the domains of Projects, programs, and Portfolios.

Corporate
(KRG Representative)

Minister

Portfolio

Board of
Consultants

Deputy 1

Deputy 2

Programs

G.D.
Erbil

G.D.
Dohuk

G.D.
Sulaimani

G.D.
Admin &
Finance

G.D.
Technique

Projects

Departments

Departments

Departments

Departments

Departments

Figure 9. Conceptual MOCAH's OBS in Terms of (PPP) Management Domains

(Adapted from PMI OPM3, 2013)

76

5.2

OPM3 Process Overview

According to the OPM Experts LLC assessor, the assessment emphasized

analyzing the project management processes illustrated in which are detailed in the forms
of Best Practices shown in Table 8. Each Best Practice consists of separate Capabilities
with its constituents of Outcomes and Key Performance Indicators (KIPs).

Table 8. Project Management Processes

Key Structures and Processes Applicable to Project Management
Governing Bodies and Policies
Initiation
Project Plan Development
Scope Planning
Scope Definition
Activity Definition
Activity Sequencing
Activity Duration Estimating
Schedule Development
Resource Planning
Cost Estimating
Cost Budgeting
Risk Management Planning
Quality Planning
Organizational Planning
Staff Acquisition
Communications Planning
Qualitative Risk Analysis
Quantitative Risk Analysis

Risk Response Planning

Procurement Planning
Solicitation Planning
Project Plan Execution
Quality Assurance
Project Team Development
Information Distribution
Project Solicitation
Project Source Selection
Contract Administration
Performance Reporting
Integrated Change Control
Scope Verification
Scope Change Control
Schedule Control
Cost Control
Quality Control
Risk Monitoring and Control
Contract Closeout
Administrative Closure

77

5.3

OPM3 Assessment Steps

As discussed previously, PMI OPM3 (2008) illustrated that there are five main

steps to conduct the OPM3 assessment: (prepare for assessment, perform assessment, plan
for improvement, implement improvement, and repeat the process):

5.3.1

Step One: Prepare for Assessment

The first step for an organization in the assessment process is to prepare for

assessing its current organizational project management maturity in relation to OPM3

model. This step involves two levels of understanding:
A. Understanding the organizational strategic objectives and the degree of maturity
needed to execute these strategies,
B. Understanding the components of OPM3 and how to use them to attain the
desired level of the organizations maturity within the specified scope of the
assessment process.
It is significant to prepare the organization for the assessment process by justifying
the areas of the organization to be included in the assessment process, identifying the
stakeholders to be engaged in the process, and determine the techniques and tools
necessary to conduct the interviews at a specified time.
Accordingly, the assessment scope of MOCAH was limited to an evaluation of the
Project Management Domain and excluded the Programs and Portfolios Domains. And
within the project management domain, the assessment only included the Standardization
level and excluded the Measurement, Control, and Improvement levels.
78

The Standardization level emphasizes on the following elements:

-

Process Ownership (Process Governance)

Documented Processes (Methodology)

Communication to Necessary Stakeholders (Training)

Consistent Implementation of Work Methods (Compliance)

5.3.2

Step Two: Perform Assessment

In this step, the research attempts to develop a framework to assess MOCAHs

degree of maturity of organizational project management. The main phases of this step
are:
A. Review of which OPM3s Best Practices are and are not demonstrated
(currently) by MOCAH, which cannot be determined by conducting the SelfAssessment Mechanism (SAM) but can be determined by OPM3 ProductSuite.
The assessor report indicated that there were no artifacts provided by MOCAH
due to the lack of the Standardization of the project management processes.
B. Conducting interviews with stakeholders to develop a list of Best Practices that
are not currently demonstrated by the organization should be considered as
target Best Practice (PMI OPM3, 2008). The stakeholders job titles were
identified as shown in Table 9. Identifying job classifications is significant to
know where to plan for improvement in the next step of the OPM3
Improvement Cycle.

79

Table 9. MOCAH's Stakeholders

No.

Job Titles

Senior Engineer - General Directorate of Roads and Bridges

Senior Engineer - Director of Road Protection and Maintenance

Consultant Engineer - General Directorate of Roads and Bridges

Senior Project Manager - General Directorate of Roads and Bridges

Project Manager - Ministry of construction and Housing

Project Manager - General Directorate of Roads and Bridges

Project Manager - Ministry of construction and Housing

Laboratory Manager - Directorate of Laboratory

Senior Manager - Directorate of Laboratory

10

Project Manager - Director of Road Protection and Maintenance

11

Senior Project - Directorate of Roads and Bridges

12

Project Manager - Director of Road Protection and Maintenance

13

Project Manager - Director of Road Protection and Maintenance

According to OPM assessor report, the SAM tests no Capability Statements and
the results of its question about many processes are only by single answer Yes/No, which
make the results ineffective to make the right decisions. However, the processes applied
the SAM then ProductSuite for good measure.
Furthermore, the assessor report illustrated that the results of the SAM applied to
MOCAH were 100% for the assessment of the standardization of all project management
80

processes. In other words, MOCAH interpreted the SAM questions in a way that was
confusing and led the responder(s) to answer optimistically where the opposite was
appropriate. When the ProductSuite assessment questions applied, MOCAH scored 0%
against the Capabilities Statements for the standardization of project management
processes, as in Appendix A. Thus, these two different results for the same processes
revealed that SAM is not appropriate and ProdcutSuite should be applied instead
(Schlichter J. report). The OPM3 expert noted that this point is the most important of any
for the wider audience of the project management profession.
Regarding the ProductSuite application, the score summary of the assessment
process was provided by the OPM assessor and it can be illustrated as in Table 10 and the
raw data can be found in Appendix A.

Table 10. Summary of the Assessment Scores

Best Practice Category

1.1
1.2

Awarded

Score

Points

(%)

504

126

25%

684

258

38%

1188

384

32%

Available Points

Standardization of Project
Management Processes
Organizational Enablers

Total

81

Table 10 shows that the MOCAH has awarded 126 points of 504 points available,
which gives a score of 25% for Standardization of project management processes, and
258 points of 684 points available, which gives a score of 38% for Organizational
Enablers. As the total score, MOCAH has awarded 384 points of 1118 points available,
which gives total score of 32%.

5.3.3

Step Three: Plan for Improvements

Based on the two assessment steps, MOCAH may be able to provide an effective

plan for potential organizational improvements. The results of the assessment steps should
be documented and analyzed to (recognize and prioritize) the desired/successful
Outcomes, that have not been observed by MOCAH.
The prioritizing of Capabilities with its constituent successful Outcomes, can be
achieved from a review of the (Interrelationships and Dependencies) between the Best
Practices, Capabilities, Outcomes, and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) explained in
previous sections of this research.
This will support MOCAH to search for the Capabilities that are associated with
these desired successful Outcomes and a top priority in MOCAHs improvements plan.
Table 11 documents that MOCAHs assessment process was limited to the
Standardization level with a score of only 25% of the process improvements stages and
the other stages (Measurement, Control, and Improvements) were not applicable for the
scope of this research.

82

Table 11. Score Summary for Process Maturity and Organizational Enablers
Stage
Standardize
Measure
Control
Improve

Process Maturity Score

25%
NA
NA
NA

Organizational Enablers
Score
38%

Therefore, there are significant and large areas remain to be addressed by

MOCAHs leaderships to obtain reliable and constant implementation of required
approaches in project management processes recommended by the report.
However, a score of 25% refers to the existence of a governing body as board of
directors within MOCAH, as explained in MOCAHs OBS in previous sections of this
research. This can be considered as a strength point by which MOCAH can enhance its
project management standardization through characterizing polices, verifying and
recording processes, and evaluating compliance which need to be undertaken by the board
of directors in the future.
Accordingly, the report recommends MOCAH to dedicate more efforts and
allocate more resources to have a clear understanding of identifying its polices to
determine and document required processes and train the stakeholders to be familiar and
capable to implement the project management processes based on systematic and
institutionalized polices and processes within MOCAH.

83

Table 11 also indicates that the score summary for the Organizational Enablers
(OEs) within MOCAH was 38% which is summarized from the raw data provided in detail
in Appendix A. The raw data shows that Best Practices categorized for the OEs were
focusing on:
-

Organizational PM Policy & Vision

Strategic Alignment

Resource Allocation

Management Systems

Sponsorship

Organizational Structures

Competency Management

Individual Performance Appraisals

Project Management Training

Project Management Communities

Project Management Practices

Methodology

Project Management Techniques

5.3.4

Step Four: Implement Improvements

After completing Step Three above and the improvement plan has been

established, MOCAH could implement the plan continuously. At this point it is important
to understand that the changes that the organization makes are themselves projects to be
84

planned and allocate necessary resources for implementing them successfully. The
organization should approach the planning and implementation of desired changes as
projects (PMI OPM3, 2008). This is true because the organizations objectives can be
achieved successfully through delivering successful projects, and projects are defined as
successful projects by its successful/desired Outcomes. Accordingly, MOCAH should
start its assessment, and thereby, implement the improvements plan within its Projects
Domain, and then step forward to support its Programs and Portfolios Domains.
Through the process of the implementation of improvements plan MOCAH may
face many challenges that can create potential (Resistance to Change). Among these
factors; the organizational structure, leaderships, traditional management process,
financial, policies, cultural, technological, and human-resources factors. Therefore,
MOCAH should consider that the implementation of improvements (changes) will need
step-by-step change management processes that can support MOCAHs implementation
of OPM capabilities to ensure the correct process of the improvements implementation.
MOCAH should be able to create a (Readiness-to-Change) environment across its
domains of projects, programs, and portfolios management, which means continuously
standardize, measure, and control the process of improvements and control any potential
inconsistency between the desired level of organizational maturity and the actual
outcomes of the process. Consequently, the process may provide less progress on the
improvement path at the beginning of the process, which is possible for the first stages.
MOCAH, however, should not stop implementing the process and should repeat the steps
of improvement provided by OPM3 Improvement Cycle.
85

5.3.5

Step Five: Repeat the Process

After the implementation of the four steps explained above, MOCAH may have

clearer idea about its current organization maturity state and the results may lead the
decision makers to decide whether to continue on the same improvement plan or to modify
it. The modification of improvement plan may needs more effective assessment steps to
recognize the Capabilities that are still not observed by MOCAH through the first attempts
to apply the OPM3 improvement cycle. Repeatedly implementing the assessment
processes will enhance MOCAHs capability to recognize its weaknesses and gaps in
terms of OPM and realize the Best Practices that are existent and what are not. Then it
supports the stakeholders including project managers to implement the OPM processes in
a systematic manner which lead to deliver the projects successfully.

5.4

Summary and Findings

To apply the OPM3 standard to assess the OPMM of MOCAH, this research

conducted an analysis of the OPM assessment conducted by OPM Experts LLC. The
processes included the application of both SAM and ProductSuite mechanisms. The
necessary data was collected from varied resources within the MOCAH and from other
KRGs resources. After the data was collected, the OPM assessor analyzed it and reported
the results to be studied by the MOCAHs leaderships in order to take necessary actions
per the recommendations provided by the report. The scope of the assessment was limited
to the Project Management Domain and the Standardization level of the process
improvement stage. The summary of the results showed that the score of the project
86

management processes at the standardization level was 25 percent, the score of the OEs
was 38 percent, and the total score was 32 percent, as explained in previous sections of
this research.
From the score results, this research documents that MOCAH should focus on
completing the agenda of Standardization of Project Management and the agenda of
Measurement of Project Management. Then it may conduct additional research regarding
improvements in other levels of the process improvement stages and for the Programs and
Portfolios Management Domains. Furthermore, the assessors report provides an
important roadmap to support MOCAH for enhancing its organizational project
management performance to achieve its objectives of more consistent, reliable, and
predictable projects. The recommendations and the roadmap are explained in detail in the
following section.

87

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1

Introduction
In this section, conclusions, recommendations, and a Roadmap are provided. The

conclusions include a summary of the research content and the findings obtained from the
results of the report provided by the OPM assessor.
The recommendations were categorized into three categories as follows:
1. Recommendations for MOCAHs project management processes,
2. Recommendations for the Standardization of project management domain,
3. Recommendations for the Organizational Enablers (OEs).
Finally, the roadmap consists of five phases to implement specified
recommendations under specific Organizational Enablers category.

6.2

Conclusions

6.2.1

Summary
As one of the vital ministries within Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), since

its establishment in 2004, MOCAH was tasked to face many challenges due to the
enormous urgent infrastructure development and construction requirements. The physical
destruction and harmful policies of Iraqi governments undermined the infrastructure in
Kurdistan Region.
The research problem identified that MOCAH is challenged by organizational and
project management issues including: Lack of organizational and project strategies,
88

insufficient budget, and poor quality controls. Due to the lack of effective assessment and
organizational project management performance, the current structure and operational
procedures of MOCAH is not optimal to successfully deliver current and future
infrastructure needs of the Kurdistan Region.
The main objective of this research was to incorporate the OPM3 standard to
support MOCAHs leaderships with clear understanding of MOCAHs current status in
terms of organizational project management capabilities and to identify the strengths and
weaknesses in the areas that need more attention. Accordingly, to provide a wellstructured roadmap as an effective basis for decision making and prioritizing of the best
practice, and thereby select and implement the right projects in the way.
To obtain the research objective, the research provided a literature review of the
fundamental concepts of OPM, PMO, Maturity Concepts, OPMM, maturity models,
OPM3 examples and case studies, OPM3 concepts and other related materials to support
MOCAH with further understanding of OPM process knowledge and what OPM3
standard is and how to utilize it.
Furthermore, the research included the background of the organizational
environment as MOCAH within KRG, including a brief of Kurdistan Region and
Kurdistan Regional Government background. In addition, the research provided a
comprehensive overview of MOCAH by using SWOT Analysis to analyze the general
status of MOCAH determining the strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities. The
main objective of SWOT analysis was to illustrate the internal and external factors that

89

directly and/or indirectly impact on MOCAHs performance in general context of OPM

processes.
The scope of the research was limited to Project Management Domain and the
Standardization level of the process improvement stages. Therefore, the domains of
Programs and Portfolios Management were excluded and the other stages of the process
improvement (Measurement, Control, and Improvement) were not applied in the
assessment process in this research. Accordingly, more researches and studies are
recommended and for that, a roadmap was established.
The assessment process was conducted under the sponsorship of His Excellency
the Minister of MOCAH. John Schlichter, a founder and leader at OPM Experts LLC, was
the OPM assessor who conducted the assessment process with collaboration and
participation of MOCAH stakeholders. The stakeholders included the Deputy Minister,
Director Generals (DGs), Ministers Advisor, and Senior Engineers/Managers from
different departments within MOCAH.
The assessor prepared a comprehensive report included the process of
organizational project management maturity assessment for MOCAH. The report
provided the scope of the assessment process, the methodology, SAM and ProductSuite
mechanisms applied for the assessment process, analyzing the data collected, and
reporting the results to provide substantial recommendations and establish the roadmap
for more prospective improvement.

90

6.2.2

Findings
The results of the assessment process showed that the score of the Standardization

level of process improvement stages, within the Project Management Domain, was 25%,
the score of the Organizational Enablers (OEs) was 38%, and the total score for MOCAH
was 32%. More information about the assessment results can be found in Appendix A.
These results were limited to the Standardization level and Project Management Domain,
which means MOCAH has to dedicate more efforts to obtain higher level of maturity of
process improvements stages and in Programs and Portfolios Management Domains.
In general, the results of the assessment process indicate that MOCAH has a low
level of maturity in practicing the organizational project management knowledge and
processes accordingly, the OPM assessor has provided important recommendations and
developed a roadmap to help MOCAHs leaderships to identify the available Best
Practices to be enhanced, and distinguish the necessary areas to be addressed for further
improvements in the future. The recommendations and the roadmap are explained in the
following sections.

6.3

Research Significance and Contributions

The findings of the research and the recommendations have significant

contributions to MOCAH as follows:

-

The assessment OPM3 process provides MOCAH an understanding of the

necessity of establishing an effective project management office (PMO) and the
standards of project management performance and practices.
91

The assessment results will help MOCAH to identify the gap between its strategy
and successful projects.

The findings illustrate the current status of MOCAH in terms of organizational

project management maturity in project management domain.

The results can be used as initial framework for conducting the assessment
process in program and portfolio management domains in the future.

6.4

Recommendations
The recommendations are provided based on the results and findings of the

research as follows:

6.4.1

Recommendations for MOCAHs Project Management Processes

According to the research findings, MOCAH needs more to do in order to enhance

its OPM performance utilizing global standards and metrics, such the well-known
standards of the Project Management Institute (PMI); A Guide to The Project Management
Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK Guide).
The assessment results shows that MOCAH has not acquired full understanding of
knowledge of project management processes. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that
MOCAHs leaderships should undertake imperative steps to identify the list of the project
management processes explained by the (PMI PMBOK Guide), as explained in Appendix
A, and take necessary actions to train project managers, document control the inputs, and
92

document the outcomes. This is significant for MOCAH to have a clear understanding of
the fundamental concepts of PM knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to be applied
systematically through the management process groups; Initiating, Planning, Executing,
Monitoring and Controlling, and Closing.

6.4.2

Recommendations for the Standardization of Project Management Domain

The scope of the research was limited to the Standardization of project

management domain. As such, the analysis focused on the elements of: documented
processes, process ownership, training, and compliance policy. For this part of the process,
the result of the assessment process provided general recommendations regarding the
standardization as follows:
-

The main elements of standardization including project managers training, process

documentation, polices governing process, and compliance policy processes,
should be considered by MOCAHs leaderships as critical requirements.
Therefore, it is recommended that MOCAH should involve a PMI subject matter
expert to conduct the training processes include these standardization elements.
The PMI expert involvement supports MOCAHs leaderships to identify the
crucial characteristics for MOCAH to be determined for each process in a manner
that appropriate and aligned with MOCAHs strategies.

It is recommended that MOCAHs leaderships should procure PMI compliant

templates for PM artifacts, particularly the BOT Internationals Process-OnDemand (POD) detailed in PMI PMBOK Guide.
93

MOCAH should document its performed project management processes in terms

of inputs, tools and techniques, and outputs in order to characterize the variations
of its projects and distribute these documents to share it on a local communication
network.

The engagement of a PMI expert is recommended to support MOCAHs

leaderships with development of a metrics program which encourage MOCAH to
better perform its project management practices emphasizing on relevant clients
of these practices. This is significant for MOCAH to achieve the Control level of
maturity in OPM3.

Finally, MOCAH should conduct a follow-up assessment after achieved

improvements to exhibit advancement and develop a framework for following
steps.

6.4.3

Recommendations for the Organizational Enablers (OEs)

The PMI OPM3 (2013) defined the OEs as structural, cultural, technological and

human resource practices that can be leveraged to support and sustain the implementation
of Best Practices in projects, programs, and portfolios. As described in section 3 of this
research, the PMI OPM3, 2013 categorizes the OEs best practices into several varied
groups. Based on the findings of the assessment processes, the research recommended
MOCAH for the OEs Best Practices groups as in Table 12.

94

Table 12. OEs Recommendations

OEs
Best Practice Category
Sponsorship

Recommendations
Eliminate the obstacles to project management processes and share these
process amongst peers and clients.

Organizational Structures Further analysis of MOCAHs organization structure for better support
organizational objectives.
Benchmarking

Compare with similar organizations to recognize reliable best practice

metrics and plan for continuous improvements for these metrics.

Strategic Alignment

Assign responsibility and accountability of a designed business change

management program to suitable right people.

OPM Policy and Vision

Establish OPM policy, set clear vision for MOCAH, train project
managers to acquire OPM knowledge, and share the organization goals.

Management Systems

Characterize MOCAHs Project, Program, and Portfolio Management

Framework.

OPM Methodology

Document the organizational project management methodology that fulfill

MOCAHs needs.

Project Success Criteria

Arise awareness of the success criteria for projects among MOCAHs

project managers.

Project Management
Techniques

Integrate captured data from industry with MOCAHs planning models to

incorporate project management tools, techniques, measurements, and
consistent estimating processes that should be provided to MOCAHs
stakeholders and managers.

Resource Allocation and Assign resources based on necessary activities and training required for
Competency Management project management processes to improve individual skills and then assess
MOCAH managers competency regarding the areas of management,
leadership, and communication.
Project Management
Training

Conduct and promote training to enhance project management policies and

performance for MOCAHs employees according to well-defined
programs that match each individuals role in the related projects.

Project Management
Practices

Distinguish the program manager role, emphasizing on MOCAHs

organization interests and compliance of program managers with
responsibilities and concession for their relationships and activities related
to their programs.

OPM Communities

MOCAHs PMO should encourage its project managers to join external

PM teams to develop their skills and strength internal practices within
MOCAH.

95

Table 12. Contd

OEs
Recommendations
Best Practice Category
Knowledge Management
and Project Management
Information Systems
(PMIS)

MOCAHs PMO should document lessons learned the PMIS requirements

and share it across its related departments. This will support the PMO to
analyze and document the stakeholders needs for knowledge management
and PMIS and assess their effectiveness after using it in MOCAHs
projects.

Project Management
Metrics

Describe and assemble a standard set of metrics from entire projects. These
metrics includes clients satisfaction and quality metrics which MOCAH
should determine required costs and efforts compared with the benefits
from collecting these metrics.

6.5

Roadmap
Based on (PMI OPM3, 2013), the completed and revised assessment and

improvement work can be documented by the improvement roadmap. After completing

the improvement processes of MOCAH, the organizations location on the continuum of
OPM maturity against the Best Practices of OPM3 standard was evaluated. Accordingly,
the roadmap will support MOCAHs leadership to realize the organizations current
maturity based on existent Best Practices and how to step forward to obtain more Best
Practices that help the organization to achieve more improvements in the future. And
thereby to enhance the linkage between the organizations strategies and its successful
projects.
Based on the assessment report the research provided a roadmap that MOCAHs
leaderships should take into consideration for future assessment and improvements,
96

utilizing OPM3 standards concepts. The roadmap includes five phases in which each
phase explains significant tasks for MOCAH to be implemented according to associated
recommendation provided for each task. The roadmap phases and its recommendations
are illustrated in Table 13.

Table 13. Roadmap

Phases
Phase 1

Tasks

- Establish process
governance frame for
PM standardization.

Recommendations to be Implemented

- OEs for Organizational Project Management Policy & Vision.

- OEs for Strategic Alignment.

Phase 2

- Distribute governance policies for PM in

MOCAH.
-

Phase 3

- MOCAHs PM
documentation.

Phase 4

OEs for Sponsorship

OEs for Organizational Structures.
OEs for Management Systems.
OEs for Project Success Criteria.

- OEs for OPM Practices.

- OEs for OPM Methodology.
- OEs for OPM Techniques.

- Stakeholders training - OEs for PM Training.

for governance body, - OEs for Competency Management.
policies, and
- OEs for Individual Performance Appraisals.
documentation
- OEs for Resource Allocation.
processes

Phase 5

- Establish metrics for - OEs for PM Metrics.

polices and
- OEs for OPM Communities.
characteristics of PM - OEs for Benchmarking.
activities.
- OEs for Knowledge Management and PMIS.

97

REFERENCES

Ahmed, K., KRG Minister of Construction and Housing, (2013). The Report Company
Interview. Avalable online: http://www.the-report.net/iraq/kurdistan-regionsep2013/628interview-kamaran-ahmed-krg-minister-of-construction-and-housing.
Andersen, E.S., and Jessen, S.A. (2003). Project Maturity in Organizations. International
Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, Iss. 6, pp. 457-461.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., Muller, R., Lille, L., and Blomquist, T. (2010). Identifying Forces
Driving PMO Changes. Project Management. Journal by the Project Management
Institute Published online in Wiley InterScience, (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:
10.1002/pmj.20191.
Bredillet, N. (2006). Global Project Management Handbook: Planning, Organizing, and
Controlling International Projects, Second Edition. Chapter 3, McGraw-Hill Professional.
Business model. Strategy diagram. Business strategy chart. SWOT template. Available
online at:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chromeinstant&rlz=1C1CHLA_enUS553US5
53&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=swot%20analysis%20template .
Cleland, D., and Gareis, R. (2006). Global Project Management Handbook: Planning,
Organizing, and Controlling International Projects, Second Edition. Chapter 2, McGrawHill Professional.
Cooke-Davies J. and Arzymanowe, A. (2003). The Maturity of Project Management in
Dierent Industries: An Investigation into Variations between Project Management
Models. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, pp. 471-478.
Dai, X., and Wells, G. (2004). An Exploration of Project Management Oce Features and
Their Relationship to Project Performance. International Journal of Project Management,
vol. 22, pp. 523532.

98

Desai, S., Crnkovic, J., and Ross, P. (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity
Model (OPM3): A Case Study Managing Worldwide Operations & Communications
with Information Technology, 1305.
ESI International. (2011). The Global State of the PMO in 2011: Its Value, Effectiveness
and Role as the Hub of Training. Available online: http://www.esiintl.com/~/media/Files/Public-Site/US/Research-Reports/ESI-2011-PMO-global-surveyFULL-REPORT-US
Guangshe, J., Li, C., Jianguo, C., Shuisen, Z., and Jin, W., (2008). Application of
Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) to Construction in China.
An Empirical Study. International Conference on Information Management, Innovation
Management and Industrial Engineering.
Hobday, M. (2000). The Project-Based Organization: an Ideal Form for Managing
Complex Products and Systems? Elsevier Science B.V.
Ibbs, W., and Kwak, H. (2000). The Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity
Model: Measuring the Value of Project Management.
Karim, S.B.A., Rabiatul, Adawiyah A. Rahmin, Suhaimi, M., Danuri M., and Mohamed,
O. (2014). Developing the Value Management Maturity Model (VM3). Department of
Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of Design and Built Environment, vol. 14(1).
Kerzner, H. (2001) Strategic Planning for Project Management Using a Maturity Model.
John Wiley & Son Inc. New York.
Kerzner, H. (2009) Project Management, A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling,
and Controlling. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York.
Korbel, A. and Benedict, R. (2008). Application of the Project Management Maturity
Model to drive Organizational Improvement in a State Owned Corporation. Parsons
Brinckerhoff, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kulshreshtha, P. (2008). Public Sector Governance Reform: the World Banks
Framework. International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 21, pp. 556-567.
99

Lester, A. (2006). Project Management, Planning and Control: Managing Engineering.

Construction and Manufacturing Projects to PMI, APM and BSI Standards, Elsevier
Science & Technology Books, Fifth Edition. pp 44.
Merdith, J. & Mantel, S. (2009). Project Management: A Managerial Approach, John
Wiley & Sons. Inc , New York . Available online:
https://bangkamil.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/project-management-a-managerialapproach-7th-ed.pdf .
Montero, G. (2013). Analysis of Common Maturity Models Applied to Project
Management. Book of Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Industrial Management - XVII Congreso de Ingeniera de Organizacin.
Morris Peter WG. (1994). The Management of Projects. London: Thomas Telford
Services Ltd, Thomas Telford House, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.
Muspratt, M. A. (1987). Conditions Affecting Projects in Less Developed Countries,
International Journal of Project Management, vol. 5, pp. 45-53.
ODE (2010) Oxford Dictionary of English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. OGC,
Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3).
Oforil D. and Deffor E. (2013). Assessing Project Management Maturity in Africa: A
Ghanaian Perspective. Department of Organization and Human Resource Management,
University of Ghana Business School, Legon, Ghana.
OGC (2009) Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2. The Stationary Office.
Available online: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chromeinstant&rlz=1C1CHLA_enUS553US553&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF8#q=ogc%20(2009)%20managing%20successful%20projects%20with%20prince2.%20t
he%20stationary%20office.
Paul, M.C., Curtis B., Chrissis M.B., Weber Ch.V. (1993), Capability Maturity Model for
Software, version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute.

100

Pemsel, S., Wiewior A., Muller R., Aubry M., and Brown K. (2014). A Conceptual of
Knowledge Governance in Project-Based Organizations. International Journal of Project
Management 32, pp.1411-1422.
Pennypacker, S. (2002). Benchmarking Project Management Maturity: Moving to Higher
Levels of Performance, PMI Annual Seminars & Symposium, San Antonio, 2002.
Pennypacker, S., and Grant, K. (2006). Project Management Maturity: An Assessment of
Project Management Capabilities Among and Between Selected Industries. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 53, NO. 1.
PMI Global Standard. (2013). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
(OPM3), Knowledge Foundation. Third Edition, Project Management Institute, Inc.
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
PMI Standard. (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3),
Knowledge Foundation. First Edition, Project Management Institute, Inc. Newtown
Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
PMI Standard. (2008). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model, Knowledge
Foundation. Second Edition, Project Management Institute, Inc. Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania, USA.
PMI. (2011). OPM3 Case Study, ProductSuite in Action: Savannah River Site. The
Washington Savannah River Co. (WSRC), Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, USA.
PMI. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge PMBOK GUID,
Fifth Edition, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
Schlichter J., (2015). Organizational Project Management Maturity Assessment Prepared
for the Ministry of Construction and Housing (MOCAH) within the Kurdistan Regional
Government. OPM Experts LLC, 227 Sandy Springs Pl. D308, Atlanta, Georgia 30328,
USA.
Schlichter, J. (2003). The History of OPM3. OPM Experts LLC, OPM Experts LLC, 227
Sandy Springs Pl. D308 Atlanta, Georgia 30328, USA.
101

Sonuga, F., Aliboh, O., and Oloke D. (2002). Particular Barriers and Issues Associated
with Projects in a Developing and Emerging E conomy. Case study of some abandoned
water and irrigation projects in Nigeria, International Journal of Project Management.
vol. 20, pp. 611-616.
Turner, R. and Muller, R. (2003). On the Nature of the Project as a Temporary
Organization. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, pp. 18.
Additional Resources:
Backlund, F., Chroner, D., and Sundqvist, E. (2010). Project Management Maturity
Models A Critical Review, A case study within Swedish engineering and construction
organizations. University of Technology, Industrial Engineering and Management,
Sweden.
Bendict, R. (2006). Application of the Project Management Maturity Model to drive
Organizational Improvement in a State Owned Corporation. Strategic Senior Consultant,
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Comfort, B. (2013). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3). Your
Framework for Process Improvement. Available online:
http://copevents.pmi.org/docs/pmosymp2013/comfort-organizational-projectmanagement-maturity-model.pdf?sfvrsn=2 .
Gareis, R. and Huemann, M. (2006). Maturity-Models for the Project-Oriented Company,
in J. R.Turner (ed.). The Gower Handbook of Project Management, 4th ed. Aldershot:
Gower.
Groshkova, E. (2011). Improving Project Management Capability with Assistance of
PMO in a Technology Company. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Division of Construction Management, Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg,
Sweden.
Hilson, A. (2001). Benchmarking Organizational Project Management Capability.
Proceedings of the Annual Project Management Seminars & Symposium, Nashville.
Available online: http://www.risk-doctor.com/pdf-files/ben1101.pdf .

102

Jamaluddin, R., Chin, C., and Lee, C.W. (2010). Understanding the Requirements for
Project Management Maturity Models: Awareness of the ICT industry in Malaysia. In
Macao, pp.1573 1577. Available online:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5674174&url=http%3A%2F%2F
ieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5674174 .
Kurdistan Region of Iraq Map, Available online:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan#/media/File:Autonomous
_Region_Kurdistan_en.png .
Kurdistan Regional Government, Ministry of Construction and Housing-KRG,
http://www.krg-mocah.net/awapages.php?pageID=7.
Ozer, E. M. & BANDURA, A. (1990) Mechanisms Governing Empowerment Effects: A
Self-Efficacy Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, pp 472486.
Patton, S., McClelland Consulting, (2009), PMI OPM3 Standard Update: How
Organizational Project Management (OPM) Helps Companies Achieve Strategic
Objectives. PMIWDC Chapter.
Salary in Turkey, Available online:
http://www.payscale.com/research/TR/Country=Turkey/Salary.
The official website of Shanghai Airport Authority; (http://en.shairport.com/201205/26/content_15888467.htm).
The Official Website of the Kurdistan Board of Investment,
http://www.kurdistaninvestment.org/.

103

APPENDIX A.
SCORE SUMMARY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Best Practice Category

Awarded

Score

Points

(%)

126

126

100

Available Points

1.1

Process Ownership

1.2

Develop Project Charter

1.3

Identify Stakeholders

1.4

Develop Project Management Plan

1.5

Collect Requirements

1.6

Define Scope

1.7

Create WBS

1.8

Define Activities

1.9

Sequence Activities

1.1

Estimate Activity Resources

1.11

Estimate Activity Durations

1.12

Develop Schedule

1.13

Estimate Costs

1.14

Determine Budget

1.15

Plan Quality

1.16

Develop Human Resource Plan

1.17

Plan Communications

1.18

Plan Risk Management

1.19

Identify Risks

1.2

Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis

1.21

Perform Quantitative Risk Analysis

1.22

Plan Risk Responses

1.23

Plan Procurements

1.24

Direct & Manage Project Execution

1.25

Perform Quality Assurance

1.26

Acquire Project Team

1.27

Develop Project Team

1.28

Manage Project Team

1.29

Distribute Information

104

APPENDIX A Contd
Best Practice Category

Awarded

Score

Points

(%)

Available Points

1.31

Conduct Procurements

1.32

Monitor & Control Project Work

1.33

Perform Integrated Change Control

1.34

Verify Scope

1.35

Control Scope

1.36

Control Schedule

1.37

Control Costs

1.38

Perform Quality Control

1.39

Report Performance

1.4

Monitor & Control Risks

1.41

Administer Procurements

1.42

Close Project or Phase

1.43

Close Procurements

Score Summary for Process Maturity and Organizational Enablers

Stage
Standardize
Measure
Control
Improve

Process Maturity Score

25%
NA
NA
NA

Organizational
Enablers Score
38%

105

APPENDIX A Contd
Score Summary for Organizational Enablers

96

Awarded
Points
9

Score
(%)
9

Strategic Alignment

21

12

57

1.3

Resource Allocation

18

22

1.4

Management Systems

24

29

1.5

Sponsorship

21

38

1.6

Organizational Structures

27

13

48

1.7

Competency Management

162

59

36

1.8

Individual Performance Appraisals

12

17

1.9

Project Management Training

30

22

73

1.1

Project Management Communities

21

38

1.11

Project Management Practices

48

22

46

1.12

Methodology

30

14

47

1.13

Project Management Techniques

45

23

51

Best Practice Category

Available Points

1.1

Organizational PM Policy & Vision

1.2

106

APPENDIX B.
MOCAH PLANNED ROADS PROJECTS (2015-2030)
Planned
Project
ID

No of
Lanes

Length
Km

Intervention

Completion
Year

Budget
$US
Million

Governorate
Name

R-89

Single

7.17

New Roads

2015

11.5

Erbil

R-55
R-80
R-56
R-83
R-67
R-70

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single

2.29
2.99
7.14
1.7
1.53
15.36

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015

3.7
4.8
11.4
2.7
2.4
24.6

Erbil
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-65
R-69
R-42
R-36
R-94
R-84

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single

5.66
2.46
4.02
19.14
1.97
38.24

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015

9
3.9
6.4
30.6
3.2
61.2

Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-61
R-85
R-60
R-91
R-78
R-77

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single

2.23
36.89
7.6
5.44
7.53
18.47

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015

3.6
59
21.2
8.7
12.1
29.6

Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Erbil
Erbil
Sulaimani

R-93
R-72
R-76
R-82
R-32

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single

10.73
15.73
14.28
15.63
39.43

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015
2015
2015
2015

17.2
25.2
22.8
74
63.1

Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-08

Dual (2
Lanes)

59.87

New Roads

2015

267

Sulaimani

R-51
R-79
R-66
R-13
R-87

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single

9.79
4.9
5.8
5.83
9.53

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015
2015
2015
2015

15.7
13
9.3
9.3
5.5

Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Sulaimani
Dohuk

107

APPENDIX B. Contd
Planned
Project
ID
R-57
R-43

No of
Lanes
Dual (3
Lanes)
Dual (2
Lanes)

Length
Km

Intervention

Completion
Year

Budget $US
Million

Governorate
Name

36.75

New Roads

2015

147

Erbil

15.4

New Roads

2020

46.2

Sulaimani
Dohuk

R-68

Single

13.34

New Roads

2015

21.3

R-26

Single

4.18

New Roads

2020

10

R-64

Single

5.62

New Roads

2015

R-74

Single

6.34

New Roads

2015

10.1

R-90

Single

4.15

New Roads

2015

6.6

R-86

Single

4.53

New Roads

2015

7.3

R-81

Single

0.76

New Roads

2015

1.2

R-71

Single

4.78

New Roads

2015

7.6

R-05

Single

8.02

New Roads

2015

12.8

R-92

Single

15.46

New Roads

2015

25

Sulaimani

R-18

Dual (3
Lanes)

176.25

New Roads

2015

654

Dohuk

R-22

Dual (2
Lanes)

34.64

New Roads

2025

103.9

Erbil

R-73

Single

12.5

New Roads

2015

20

Dohuk

R-35

Dual (2
Lanes)

27.82

New Roads

2030

83.5

Erbil

R-23
R-24

Single
Single

37.78
22.48

New Roads
New Roads

2025
2025

104
89

Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-34

Dual (2
Lanes)

43.62

New Roads

2030

149

Sulaimani

R-03
R-29

Single
Single

37.99
27.92

New Roads
New Roads

2025
2030

74
163

Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-21

Dual (2
Lanes)

22.19

New Roads

2025

53

Erbil

R-45

Dual (2
Lanes)

39.48

New Roads

2025

118.4

Erbil

R-52

Dual (2
Lanes)

47.13

New Roads

2015

131

Erbil

108

Erbil
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk

APPENDIX B. Contd
Planned
Project
ID

No of
Lanes

Length
Km

Intervention

Completion
Year

Budget
$US
Million

Governorate
Name

R-11

Single

37.61

New Roads

2015

116

Sulaimani

R-19

Dual (2
Lanes)

90.73

New Roads

2030

272.2

Erbil

R-28

Single

8.72

New Roads

2030

14

Erbil

R-33

Single

2.39

New Roads

2030

3.8

Dohuk

R-46

Dual (2
Lanes)

3.45

New Roads

2020

10.4

Dohuk

R-38

Dual (2
Lanes)

34.93

New Roads

2030

104.8

Erbil

R-88

Single

6.38

New Roads

2015

10.2

Erbil

R-49
R-48
R-47
R-41
R-02
R-09

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single

12.5
8.98
5.97
4.34
14.83
13.37

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2030

20
14.4
9.6
6.9
23.7
21.4

Dohuk
Erbil
Erbil
Dohuk
Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-27
R-50
R-06

Single
Single
Single
Dual (3
Lanes)
Dual (3
Lanes)

10.86
8.93
4.97

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2030
2020
2030

17.4
14.3
7.9

Erbil
Dohuk
Erbil

143.54

New Roads

2015

1062.2

Erbil

55.64

New Roads

2020

411.7

Sulaimani

R-58
R-54

Dohuk

R-16

Dual (3
Lanes)

44.6

New Roads

2025

330

R-20

Dual (3
Lanes)

9.5

New Roads

2025

70.3

R-63

Dual (3
Lanes)

69.19

New Roads

2020

512

Erbil

R-17

Dual (2
Lanes)

9.78

New Roads

2015

25

Dohuk

R-01

Dual (2
Lanes)

7.74

New Roads

2020

23.2

Erbil

109

Dohuk

APPENDIX B. Contd
Planned
Project
ID

Length
Km

Intervention

Completion
Year

Budget
$US
Million

Governorate
Name

45.9

New Roads

2015

120

Erbil

12.49

New Roads

2015

37.5

Erbil

8.64
13.57
13.95

New Roads
New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015
2020

13.8
21.7
22.3

Erbil
Sulaimani
Dohuk

Single
Dual (2
Lanes)

26.46

New Roads

2020

42.3

Erbil

69.63

New Roads

2020

208.9

Erbil

R-97

Single

1.06

New Roads

2020

1.7

R-25

Single

77.48

New Roads

2015

124

R-40

Single

2.77

New Roads

2020

4.4

R-10

Single

14.85

New Roads

2020

23.8

R-15

Single

10

New Roads

2020

16

R-104

Single

8.76

New Roads

2020

14

R-44

Single

4.66

New Roads

2020

7.5

R-53

Dual (2
Lanes)

3.65

New Roads

2015

10.9

Erbil

R-12

Single

37.81

New Roads

2015

25.8

Sulaimani

R-59
R-75

Single
Single

7.66
14.78

New Roads
New Roads

2015
2015

12.3
23.6

Sulaimani
Sulaimani

R-102

Single

11.96

New Roads

2020

19.1

Erbil

R-39

Single

5.14

New Roads

2015

0.5

R-37

Single

5.67

New Roads

2015

R-62
R-99
R-95
R-98
R-105
R-96
R-100

Total

No of
Lanes
Dual (2
Lanes)
Dual (2
Lanes)
Single
Single
Single

2406.7

8927.6

110

Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk
Dohuk

Dohuk
Dohuk

APPENDIX C.
MOCAH PLANNED BRIDGES (2015-2030)
Proposed
Bridge ID
B-16

B-12

B-13

B-11

B-17

B-10

B-09

B-05

B-08

B-06

B-07
B-15

Proposed
Bridge Name
Proposed Bridge
B-14 - Bekhma
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-18 - Bekhma
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-17 - Bekhma
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-19 - Bekhma
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-13 - Bekhma
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-20 - Bekhma
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-3 - Gomaspan
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-9 - Taqtaq
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-4 - Taqtaq
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-6 - Khewata
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-5 - Khewata
Dam
Proposed Bridge
B-15 - Mandawa
Dam

Dam

Crossing
River
Width

Completion
Year

Governorate Name

Bekhma

27

2020

Erbil

Bekhma

21

2020

Erbil

Bekhma

20

2020

Erbil

Bekhma

46

2020

Erbil

Bekhma

44

2020

Dohuk

Bekhma

2020

Erbil

Gomaspan

24

2015

Erbil

TaqTaq

42

2015

Sulaimani

TaqTaq

48

2015

Sulaimani

Khewata

65

2015

Sulaimani

Khewata

47

2015

Sulaimani

Mandawa

26

2020

Erbil

111

APPENDIX C. Contd
Proposed
Bridge ID

B-02

B-04
B-03

Proposed
Bridge Name
Universal
Bridge instead
of Hafiz and
Barslin Bridges
Kolasotawo Korashala
Bridge
Parwiz Khan
Bridge

B-21

Grega Bridge

B-01

Omarbil Bridge

B-19

Zimkan Bridge

Dam

Crossing
River
Width

Completion
Year

Governorate Name

Crossing
Stream

2015

Erbil

Crossing
Stream

715

2015

Sulaimani

Cross Border

2015

Sulaimani

2020

Dohuk

2015

Sulaimani

2015

Sulaimani

Crossing
Stream
Crossing
Stream
Crossing
Stream

112