The Maturity of Project Management in Different Industries: An Investigation Into Variations Between Project Management Models

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

The maturity of project management in different industries:


An investigation into variations between project
management models
Terence J. Cooke-Daviesa,b,*, Andrew Arzymanowc
a
Human Systems International Limited, 4 West Cliff Gardens Folkestone, Kent CT20 1SP, UK
b
University of Technology, Sydney, Honorary Research Fellow, University College London, UK
c
Global Project Management, Pfizer Limited, (i.p.c. 34), Sandwich, Kent CT13 9NJ, UK

Received 22 January 2002; received in revised form 20 September 2002; accepted 19 November 2002

Abstract
This paper presents the results of an investigation into the nature and extent of variations between project management practices in
six industries. The investigation had the practical purpose of supporting a group of pharmaceutical R&D organizations in their search
for an optimum project management model. A total of 10 ‘domains’ was identified using qualitative methods and these formed the
basis for a programme of 31 in-depth interviews with knowledgeable project management practitioners in 21 organizations drawn
from the six industries. Each interview elicited a quantitative assessment of the practices relating to the domain, using pre-determined
scales, and qualitative comments on the practices based on the experiences of the interviewee. Differences between companies and
industries were found to exist in each domain. The most highly developed project management models (which might be said to equate
to measure of project management maturity) were found in the Petrochemical and Defence industries, which on average scored highly
on most dimensions. Other industries (Pharmaceutical R&D, Construction, Telecommunications, and Financial Services) displayed
some interesting differences in different domains, but did not display the coherence or scores of the two leading industries.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management maturity; Inter-industry comparison; Management by projects; Leadership

1. Introduction likely to prove fruitful? Does the literature on project


management suggest that this might be a sensible topic
If you are a project manager, and you suspect that the to study empirically?
basic approach to project management in your organi- Modern project management has its roots in the sec-
zation is not ideal, what can you do to convince senior ond world war, and developed in a limited number of
management of the benefits of adopting a different engineering based industries during the 1950s, 1960s and
model? Can you trust your own intuition and experi- 1970s [1]. More recently, the demand for project man-
ence? Where can you look for evidence that there are agers has mushroomed, as project working has increased
better ways of approaching the management of projects dramatically in a broad range of industries [24].
across an organization? One might reasonably expect ‘‘industries of origin’’ to
One place to start is by talking to practitioners in have developed a more advanced model of project
different organizations, or even in different industries, management than industries such as Pharmaceutical
and this paper describes one piece of empirical research Research and Development which adopted project
that was designed to provide someone asking these management disciplines and practices somewhat later.
questions with some kind of a ‘‘road map’’. But is it But did they?
Are these ‘‘industries of origin’’ in some way more
‘‘mature’’ than later adopters of project management? Is
* Corresponding. Tel.: +44-1303-226071; fax: +44-1303-226072.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] there evidence that being more ‘‘mature’’ in project
(T.J. Cooke-Davies), [email protected]fizer.com management brings with it an improvement in project
(A. Arzymanow). management practice?
0263-7863/03/$30.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00084-4
472 T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478

2. Project management maturity while the human dimension includes not only the people
who are operating these processes, but their expertise.
The concept of process maturity was born in the Total It could be argued that the process of planning or
Quality Management movement, where the application managing a large project is very different in nature as
of statistical process control (SPC) techniques showed well as in scope from processes such as issuing customer
that improving the maturity of any technical process invoices. One of the differences is the extent to which
leads to two things: a reduction in the variability inher- individual expertise, knowledge and judgment are
ent in the process, and an improvement in the mean brought into play. As Lechler’s research has corrobo-
performance of the process [3]. rated [9], where projects are concerned it is people who
Through the widely adopted ‘‘Capability Maturity get things done.
Model’’ for software organisations, developed by the Indeed the continuous gradual performance improve-
Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie-Mellon ment as processes mature is in sharp contrast with the
University between 1986 and 1993, this concept of pro- way individuals acquire skill. For example, Hubert and
cess maturity migrated to a measure of ‘‘organizational’’ Stuart Dreyfus [10] identify five stages in skill acquisi-
process maturity. Integral to the model is the concept tion: novice, advanced beginner, competence, profi-
that organizations advance through a series of five ciency and expert. What distinguishes the final two
stages to maturity: initial level, repeatable level, defined stages is that although experts and proficient performers
level, managed level and optimising level. ‘‘These five are familiar with the rules of good practice, they no
maturity levels define an ordinal scale for measuring the longer select and follow rules. Rather they perform
maturity of an organization’s software process and for smoothly, effortlessly and subconsciously.
evaluating its software process capability. The levels But regardless of whether it is appropriate to apply
also help an organization prioritize its improvement the concept of process- or organizational-maturity to
efforts.’’ [4] The ‘‘prize’’ for advancing through these project management or whether it is preferable to think
stages is an increasing ‘‘software process capability’’, in terms of developing skilled practitioners through
which results in improved software productivity. some form of ‘‘situated learning’’, or even some combi-
Since software is developed through projects, it is nation of the two, it seems logical to conclude that the
natural that the concept of organizational maturity longer an industry is subjected to commercial pressures
would migrate from software development processes to to perform, the more mature both its processes and its
project management, and this has been reflected in an practitioners are likely to become.
interest in applying the concept of ‘‘maturity’’ to soft- Taken together, these two dimensions, the human and
ware project management [5]. Possibly as a result of this the technical, will coalesce in a corporate culture that
a number of project management maturity models either promotes good project management practice, or
appeared during the mid-1990s that were more heavily that inhibits it. And it is in order to review the literature
influenced by the thinking of the project management on corporate culture, before describing the empirical
profession. For example, Ibbs and Kwak [6] used one of research that is the subject of this article.
these models in their attempt to demonstrate the orga-
nizational benefits of project management. This parti-
cular model from IPS, along with others such as that 3. Corporate culture
from ESI/George Washington University and Kerzner
[7], incorporates elements from the PMBOK1 Guide The 1980s saw an outpouring of management writings
[23]. on the subject of culture, with the runaway success of
Other models that are being used to assess project Peters and Waterman’s ‘‘In Search of Excellence’’ [11]
management maturity include the assessment of project illustrating the extent to which the genre touched the
management processes as a part of the organization’s hearts of the management community.
overall assessment of the quality of its business pro-
cesses, using models such as the Baldridge National These authors have concentrated on what might be
Quality Award(see http://www.quality.nist.gov) or the called the ‘‘behavioural side’’ of management and
European Forum for Quality Management’s ‘‘Business organisation. They have argued that the difference
Excellence’’ model(see http://www.wfqm.org/imodel/ between successful and not-so-successful organisa-
model1.htm). The Project Management Institute is tions rests with the values and principles that
developing a standard for organizational project man- underlie their internal organisation . . .
agement maturity, known as OPM3TM [3,8].
Every aspect of project management has two dimen- Organisational culture is the term that has come to
sions—a technical dimension and a human dimension. The comprise this set of behavioural variables that have
technical dimension encompasses those groups of practices drawn so much attention. ‘‘Culture’’ refers to the
or processes that are integral to project management, underlying beliefs, values and principles that serve
T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478 473

as a foundation for an organisations management support the development of superior practices in


system as well as the set of management practices healthy environments.
and behaviours that both exemplify and reinforce
those basic principles [12]. There appear to be differences in the level of project
management practised in different industries—so the
The culture of an organization, therefore, exerts a research questions to be answered empirically are,
strong influence on all the members of the organization ‘‘What are the differences in practice between industries,
who are undertaking projects in or for it. This was and what is the extent of the difference?’’.
recognized in the 1990 World Congress on Project
Management, where one of the four main groups of
topics was ‘‘Culture and Project Management’’. The 5. Research method
twin messages to emerge from this and subsequent lit-
erature are firstly that if the culture is unhelpful then it The study itself was part of a continuous ‘‘action
is important to change it and secondly, that irrespective learning’’ research methodology that has been described
of whether culture helps or hinders, ‘‘the effects of cul- elsewhere [2] and was led by the authors of this paper.
ture must be considered throughout the project.’’ [13]. Integral to the method is a committed group of practi-
Firstly, if the culture is unhelpful to the achievement tioners, each of whom is a ‘‘subject matter expert’’ with
of project goals, then the project may need to make extensive experience of project management, who oper-
some attempt to influence the culture for the better [14], ate as a form of ‘‘Community of Practice’’. A commu-
although this may not be simple [15]. Cleland and King nity of practice is defined as a group that shares
[16] illustrate well how certain aspects of corporate cul- knowledge, learns together, and creates common prac-
ture, notably the attitude and practices of senior man- tices. Communities of practice share information,
agers, militate against the effectiveness of the planning insight, experience, and tools about an area of common
process. interest [21].
With regard to the need to consider the effects of cul- This is highly relevant to project managers since pro-
ture, this will pervade many aspects of project manage- ject management is a discipline that has been codified as
ment practice. The leadership style of a project manager a tradition through the combined experience of its
needs to be adapted to the organisational culture [17]. practitioners—a group that could be considered as a
The practices for managing people on the project team global ‘‘community of practice’’ [2].
will be governed by the company’s HR practices [18], This community is both the ‘‘custodian’’ of the pro-
while the nature of projects and the potentially adver- ject management worldview, and also the group of peo-
sarial relationships between different organizations that ple that, by the nature of their employment, is charged
are party to a contract is likely to create a culture of with delivering the practical results of employing their
conflict and stress [19]. The impact of an adversarial understanding of the ‘‘worldview’’.
relationship on cost in the construction industry is well Project managers employed by a number of leading
illustrated in a survey of 262 projects carried out by the pharmaceutical R&D companies have formed their own
Construction Industry Institute, which shows a clear community of practice since 1999 (Project Management
correlation between high trust and low cost, and Knowledge Network—PMKN), with the explicit goal
between low trust and high cost [20]. of developing their understanding of project manage-
ment and sharing common experiences. As a part of
their search for an optimum project management model
4. Research questions they undertook during 2001 a research study to investi-
gate the research questions stated above.
Thus, this brief review of relevant literature suggests it The study had been preceded by a detailed comparison
may prove fruitful to study the differences between between members of PMKN and participating organi-
project management in different industries, because: zations in other industries, and objectives and terms of
reference were agreed at a PMKN workshop. Fig. 1
 history shows that project management has been shows how this study along with other research studies
developing for longer in certain industries than in combines with different elements of the research metho-
others; dology to create a commonly held knowledge pool.
 the study of process maturity reveals that this
historical development is likely, under certain
conditions, to lead to more reliable and pre- 6. Development of the research instrument
dictable results than in others; and
 the study of corporate culture indicates that the The instrument itself was developed by a group of
development of a positive corporate culture can Pharmaceutical R&D project managers with extensive
474 T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478

The results, which have no statistical validity whatso-


ever, were nevertheless interesting as a pointer to the
opinions of the experienced community attending the
workshop, and provided encouragement that the nine
domains were indeed potential differentiators between
industries. Fig. 2 shows the mean of scores from the
Pharmaceutical R&D companies compared with
informed individual assessments of what other indus-
tries might score.
On the basis of this exercise, the working party deci-
ded to proceed to the second phase of the study.
The workshop in May had found difficulty in distin-
guishing adequately between several of the domains since
there was felt to be both ambiguity and overlap, so the
working party undertook further work to refine them so
that each could be easily distinguished from the others.
As a result, the nine domains increased to 10 with five
of them being further sub-divided.
Fig. 1. Research elements of the knowledge pool.
1. Project culture
Pervasiveness of culture.
PM experience across one or more industries. They What is the extent of a project-based culture
drew extensively on their personal knowledge, training within the organization?
and experience and through a series of meetings using Team member identification.
normative group techniques that were supplemented by Do members of project teams identify themselves
an informal review process employing principles of mainly with the project they are working on, or
Delphi techniques [22]. with the functional discipline they possess?
The resultant instrument identified a series of ques- Depth of project identification.
tions grouped together under nine ‘‘domains’’, each of What is the lowest level at which people working
which was felt to distinguish important elements of on a project identify themselves primarily with a
project management practice that differed from industry project?
to industry. The domains were: 2. Organizational leadership
Commitment of Upper Management.
1. Extent of project culture. How committed is upper management to the
2. Extent of business (versus technical) culture. importance of developing and organizational
3. Organisational understanding of multidiscipline project management capability?
project management. Understanding of Upper Management.
4. Strength of project versus line management. How extensively does upper management reveal
5. Degree of authorisation held by a project. its understanding of what is necessary to develop
6. Extent of project management infrastructure, and improve a project delivery capability?
method and systems. 3. Business culture
7. Centralization of project information for each Business Focus.
project. To what extent are all governance decisions
8. Competency of Project Management staff. taken by the project team based on the business
9. Ability to match project team to the needs of the (as opposed to technical) case for the project?
development (stage and type). Business Awareness.
To what depth in the project team is there
This pilot version of the instrument was tested at a knowledge of the specific business goals case and
PMKN workshop in May 2001 attended by 24 project project execution strategy?
managers from 14 pharmaceutical R&D organizations, 4. Multi-project management
and a number of experienced project managers from Prioritising projects strategically.
other industries. A self-scoring questionnaire was Are all projects prioritised according to their
answered for each of these nine domains against a scale strategic importance within the organization?
between ‘‘worst practice’’ and ‘‘best practice’’ as Resourcing projects fully.
adjudged by the working party who provided written Do the resources allocated to projects reflect their
guidance through examples along the scale. strategic priority?
T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478 475

Fig. 2. Preliminary trial results of the prototype instrument.

Reacting to changing circumstances. 9. Capability of PM staff


Is there flexible resource allocation responsive to Competency of PM staff.
changes in strategic priorities ? Revising goals to Do you have the capability to deliver the projects
resource changes. When resources are changed that you need? Do you have a sufficient pool of
because of changing strategic priorities, are project competent project managers to deliver the project
goals changed accordingly? portfolio?
5. PM structure, methods and systems 10. Strength of project vs functional management
Extent of PM systems, methods and processes. Strength of matrix.
How widely across the organization are common To what extent are people and dollars allocated
systems, methods and processes used for the to and managed by the project?
management of projects?
Integration of PM systems, methods and pro-
cesses. 7. The conduct of the research study
How well are PM systems, methods and pro-
cesses Integrated with mainstream business sys- Each of the 18 questions within the 10 domains was
tems? supported by a scoring scale developed by the working
6. Degree of authorization party, which, like the preliminary instrument, was based
Project authorization. on a scale from 0 (worst practice) to 5 (best practice).
Does the project team have the authorization/ Both extremes, as well as a number of intermediary
empowerment necessary to deliver the agreed points were described.
project strategy. Is governance role to ensure In order to improve the consistency of scoring, each
project is being managed or is role to review and set of data was obtained from a senior member of the
approve decisions? project management community in the organization
7. Location of information being interviewed, in an hour-long telephone interview.
Centralization of information in each project. Only two interviewers were used, and the first two
To what extent are all project plans and func- interviews were conducted jointly, scored indepen-
tional plans and project deliverables centralized dently, and the results calibrated.
under the control of the project ? Interviews were obtained with 31 organizations, as
8. Matching team to project follows:
Matching the team to the project stage or type.
To what extent is the organization capable of  Nine ‘‘big Pharma’’ R&D organizations (spend-
characterizing the development type and stage ing more than $1billion per annum on R&D).
of a project, identify different types of teams  Six ‘‘medium Pharma’’ R&D organizations
(e.g. lightweight, heavyweight, autonomous), (spending between $250million and $1billion per
and adopt an appropriate governance structure annum on R&D).
that reflects the difference?  Five telecommunication companies.
476 T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478

 Four defence organizations. substantiated by the results of the telephone interviews.


 Three financial services companies. There is a qualitative difference between the tone of the
 Two major UK-based construction companies. answers given by the petrochemical managers and all
 Two Petrochemical organizations: One of the others.
Top 3 integrated operators, and one of the Top 3 Defence was strong, but suffered on the same three
engineering contractors. axes as big Pharma. It appears that many people at the
top of defence organizations (especially defence acqui-
Numerical scores were obtained for each question, sition) are not themselves people who have experience,
using the pre-determined ranges of scores (to produce a understanding or appreciation of the business benefits
radar chart comparison), and the descriptive answers to that can accrue from a disciplined approach to project
each question were also kept (to perform a qualitative management, and when that is coupled with the inten-
analysis of the different mental models underlying each sely political nature of defence acquisition, it puts
organization’s score.) defence lower on the ‘‘leadership’’ dimension than
medium Pharma.
It is also interesting to see how bunched together the
8. Results and discussion four industries are with regard to multi-project man-
agement. It appears that, at least from the point of view
The first interesting comparison was between big of the project management departments, multi-project
Pharma and medium Pharma (Fig. 3). On five of the management still leaves much room for improvement!
dimensions, the results were indistinguishable. There This may be particularly in the area of understanding
was even a comparable spread of scores for these. On and adjusting resources from project to project on a
three dimensions, however (degree of project working, continual basis There is generally a gradient through the
leadership and matrix strength) medium Pharma scored four sub-questions, with the first one (project prior-
better than big Pharma. The reasons advanced during itisation) generally scoring highly, and the fourth one
the interviews were all related to the closeness of the (revising expectations when resources are removed)
project management department to senior manage- generally scoring poorly in all industries.
ment, and the closeness (in time and hierarchy) of As other industries that were perhaps more recently
senior management to the project management of drug converted to appreciate the merits of project management
development. are included, the picture becomes more confused as can
The second area of interest was comparing the longest be seen from Fig. 5.
establish industrial practitioners of project manage- The profile for the construction industry as repre-
ment—petrochemicals and defence. As Fig. 4 illustrates, sented by the two companies interviewed is an interest-
the intuition of the working party was dramatically ing one. The very low dimension is ‘‘team types’’ which

Fig. 3. Big pharma and medium pharma compared.


T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478 477

Fig. 4. Pharma compared with more ‘‘mature’’ industries.

could have something to do with relative homogeneity project teams the authority they need, and allow them
of construction projects compared to other industries to hold sufficient information to manage the project
and so tended to have one single project team structure effectively.
applied to all projects.
On the other hand, the leadership of the construction
firms was drawn from people whose entire industrial 9. Conclusions and further work
experience was of construction project management,
and so the leadership was both highly committed to and Just as with the pilot exercise carried out to validate
highly knowledgeable about project management issues. the instrument, these results are more interesting as
This may also have accounted for the willingness to give qualitative indicators of the different models underlying

Fig. 5. Pharma compared with less ‘‘mature’’ industries.


478 T.J. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanow / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 471–478

project management in different industries than they are Model for Software (Version 1.1). Carnegie Mellon University,
statistically reliable indicators of the maturity of differ- Software Engineering Institute. Downloaded from www.sei.cmu.edu/
pub/documents on 10 April 2001. 1993.
ent industries.
[5] Morris Peter WG. Researching the unanswered questions of
There is, however, some evidence in the results that project management. In: Proceedings of the PMI Research Con-
the ‘‘industries of origin’’ are indeed more mature in ference, 2000, Paris, PMI; 2000.
terms of project management than industries that have [6] Ibbs William C, Kwak Young-Hoon. The benefits of project
adopted the approach more recently. The Engineering- management. Financial and organizational rewards to corpora-
based industries do score more highly than industries tions. Philadelphia: PMI Educational Foundation; 1997.
[7] Kerzner Harold. Strategic planning for project management
that adopted project management as a core capability using a maturity model. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
much more recently, such as financial services or phar- [8] Schlichter John. PMI’s organizational project management
maceutical R&D. maturity model: emerging standards. PMI ’01 Annual Sympo-
The petrochemical industry’s apparent pre-eminence sium, Nashville; 2001.
[9] Lechler Thomas. When it comes to project management, it’s the
as a source of excellence in project management is per-
people that matter: an empirical analysis of project management
haps due to the prolonged pressure on reducing the in Germany. IRNOP III. The nature and role of projects in the
costs of oil discovery and extraction due to the sus- next 20 years: research issues and problems. Calgary; 1998.
tained low oil price in the 1980s. This was particularly [10] Dreyfus, Hubert and Stuart. Mind over machine. New York NY:
true of the North Sea oil fields during the 1980s and Macmillan, The Free Press; 1986.
[11] Peters Thomas J, Waterman Robert H. In search of excellence:
1990s, which gave rise to innovative co-operative ven-
lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper
tures such as CRINE (Cost Reduction in a New Era). and Row; 1982.
The results provide a fascinating insight into the way [12] Denison Daniel R. Corporate culture and organizational effec-
that project management has developed differently tiveness. USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1990.
when it is fostered and formed in different environ- [13] Turner J Rodney. The handbook of project-based management.
England: McGraw-Hill; 1993.
ments. They also open up the possibility of identifying a
[14] Haalien TM. Managing the cultural environment for better
series of alternative ‘‘project management models’’ each results. In: Internet ’94 12th World Congress. Oslo; 1994.
of which provides a ‘‘habitable’’ way of managing [15] Cooke-Davies Terence J. Changing corporate culture to improve
portfolios of projects in a different industrial environ- project performance. In: 10th Internet World Congress on project
ment. management. Vienna I. P. M. A. 1990.
[16] Cleland David I, King William R. Systems analysis and project
The group that sponsored the research used the
management. 3rd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 1983.
results to identify a desirable profile to which they [17] Maylor Harvey. Project management. London: Pitman; 1996.
aspire. This profile, and how to accomplish it, will [18] Fabi Bruno, Pettersen Normand. Human resource management
inform the group’s work for coming years. practices in project management. International Journal of Project
It will be interesting to see whether further studies can Management 1992;10(2).
[19] Sommerville J, Langford V. Multivariate influences on the people
build on these empirical foundations to reveal more
side of projects: stress and conflict. International Journal of Pro-
precisely the mechanisms by which superior practices ject Management 1994;12(4).
can be developed over time. [20] Construction Industry Institute. Cost–trust relationship. USA:
Construction Industry Institute; 1993.
[21] Wenger Etienne. Communities of practice. Learning, meaning
References and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
[22] MG Taylor Corporation. 2001. What’s a Delphi & where did it
[1] Morris Peter WG. The management of projects. London: Tho- come from? Available from http://www.mgtaylor.com/delphi/
mas Telford; 1994. delphi.htm on 11 April 2001.
[2] Cooke-Davies Terence J. Towards improved project management [23] PMI. A guide to the project management body of knowledge
practice. USA. Available from: http://www.dissertation.com. (PMBOK1 guide) 2000 Edition CD-ROM. Philadelphia: PMI; 2000.
[3] Cooke-Davies Terence J, Schlichter F. John, Bredillet Christophe. [24] Lundin Rolf A, Stablein Ralph. Projectization of global firms—
Beyond the PMBOK1 Guide. PMI Annual Seminars and Sym- problems, expectations and meta-project management. In:
posium 2001. Nashville TS. 2001. IRNOP IV: Fourth International Conference of the International
[4] Paulk M, Curtis C, Chrissis M, Weber C. Capability Maturity Research Network on organizing by projects. Sydney; 2000.

You might also like