The Maturity of Project Management in Different Industries: An Investigation Into Variations Between Project Management Models
The Maturity of Project Management in Different Industries: An Investigation Into Variations Between Project Management Models
The Maturity of Project Management in Different Industries: An Investigation Into Variations Between Project Management Models
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
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
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
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
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.