Management Maturity Model - Research Paper Example

? Project Management Maturity Model of the of the In this research paper, the researcher will shed light on aproject management maturity model with the help of both practical examples and theoretical hypotheses. The theoretical model will be adjusted to the practical project management experience of the researcher. In the second part of this paper, the researcher will analyze an organizational strategy regarding project management. A brief stakeholder analysis from the viewpoint of a project manager will be an integrated part of this paper. In the last part, the researcher will shed light on quality dimension of a project, and the concept of earned value analysis (EVA) will also be covered. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Project Management Maturity Model 4 Organizational Strategy 10 Project Communication 12 Project Quality 13 Conclusion 17 List of Figures Figure No. Name of the Figure Page No. 1 Relationship Between Project Maturity Level & Project Performance 5 2 Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) 6 3 Control Chart 9 4 Organizational Strategy & Project Management 11 5 Earned Value Analysis 14 Introduction In the last 20 years, organizations have shifted their focus from managing a particular project to “management by projects” in order to achieve a competitive advantage in the fast running business world (Killen & Hunt, 2013). However, managing a project is not a simple process because it requires the involvement of multiple interlinked steps and satisfaction of the interests of multiple stakeholders. Killen and Hunt (2013) stated that in most cases, organizations approach project managers when they feel the urge to modify their business processes or integrate their existing processes. Killen and Hunt (2013) stressed the maturity level of any project and argued that the project maturity level is directly linked with the long term value of the project portfolio and resource allocation. Apart from Killen and Hunt (2013), other research scholars such as Rad and Levin (2006) and Pellegrinelli and Garangna (2009) have also stressed that project management maturity model is one of the crucial factors for any project management team. In the context of theoretical arguments of research scholars and project managers, the researcher has decided to shed light on project management maturity model with the help of both practical examples and theoretical hypotheses. Although the researcher is a project manager, throughout the paper the researcher will take a conjectural view in order to address the research problem in a fact-driven manner. Project Management Maturity Model Korbel and Benedict (2007) defined a project management maturity model (PMMM) as the systematic framework for a project management team to perform benchmarking and deliver value to the modern organization. The maturity model is basically an assessment approach by which an organization compares its project performance with the industry’s best practices and prepares a structured pathway to improve the existing processes. Korbel and Benedict (2007) pointed out a number of benefits associated with project management maturity models (PMMM) such as cost saving, increase in preciseness of project schedules and improvement of quality of the project. Research scholars have found a positive relationship between project performance and project maturity level. The relationship can be depicted in the following manner; Figure 1: Relationship Between Project Maturity Level & Project Performance (Source: Korbel & Benedict, 2007) The above mentioned model is showing that the performance of a project increases as its maturity level increases. The researcher believes that there cannot be one PMM model which can be used in all projects. As a project manager, the researcher has recalibrated the PMM model in order to satisfy the interests of the stakeholders of the project. For example, a PMM model for a health and safety project differs significantly from that for a construction project. However, Korbel and Benedict (2007) offered a PMMM to manage projects linked with a capability maturity model (CMM). Till date, the proposed model is regarded as a standard project management maturity model for process modeling and assessing the performance of the implemented process. The model has incorporated the knowledge dimensions mentioned by the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK). Figure 2: Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) (Source: Korbel & Benedict, 2007) According to the above model, a PMMM has five steps such as ad-hoc, planned, managed, integrated and adaptive. These five steps can be used by project managers to improve overall productivity of the process through step-wise performance improvement. Level 1 – Ad-hoc This is the first phase of any project, which is characterized by absence of a consistent process. In this situation, organizations handle multiple projects at a time without having any plan how to integrate these projects to improve overall performance. As the outcome of the ad-hoc phase is unpredictable, organizations depend heavily on project managers to decide the outcome of the projects. In the first phase, project managers get very little support from top level management of organizations due to the misconception of the management that project manager knows everything. As a result of the misunderstanding between the project management team and the organization, both of them fail to gather or transfer knowledge collected from the external environment to the combination of projects. The researcher has faced the same problem while working as a project manager for a parcel delivery company (name of the company cannot be revealed for confidentiality purposes). The project parcel delivery company had appointed the researcher and other team members to improve the efficiency of its parcel delivery. The company was facing a problem of delivery of its parcels to customers within predetermined deadlines and as a result of such delay, the cost of parcel delivery increased for the company. In the ad-hoc phase, the project management team got very little support to assess the problem due to overdependency of the parcel delivery on its project management team. Level 2 – Foundation This is the second phase of a PMMM where project managers design the root map to achieve project objectives by using various tools such as Gantt Chart, MS Project Manager, etc. In this stage, project managers do several brainstorming sessions with top level management of the hiring company in order to discuss required resources to accomplish the project. Generally, a repeatable process map is used in the foundation phase after clearly defining the problem. The outcome of the project becomes clear and predictable for the client organization after its repetitive communication with the project team. While managing the project of the parcel delivery company, the researcher used the foundation model to identify the objective of the project. The researcher did several brainstorming sessions with the management of the parcel delivery company and ultimately found three objectives of the project: 1) finding the reasons for delay in parcel delivery; 2) correcting the fault in the parcel delivery system and implementing a new system; and 3) restoring the benefits of the implemented system. The project management team and the parcel delivery organization decided to implement a new system within next three months. Level 3 – Managed In this phase, the project management team works with senior level management of the organization to develop a comprehensive plan for managing the resources. The exact time duration and cost of the project are calculated in this phase. Project managers decrease the dimension of projects and come out with a single project framework. Several technological tools are used by project managers for cost benefit analysis. Our project management team conducted a knowledge session for senior managers of the parcel delivery company for discussing the project cost. The project team had used time series analysis in order to decide the cost of recalibration of the existing courier system. The project management team had taken the example of industry best practices in order to assess the time and cost of the project. Level 4 – Integrated In this phase, project managers and senior level management of the client organization work in an interlinked and comprehensive manner in order to train respective organizational members who would handle the newly implemented system. A database of each control variable is prepared and an implementation plan is drafted by project managers by analyzing the control variables. Our project team prepared a database of the last six months’ parcel delivery failures and using the database, the project team identified control variables such as the number of delivery trucks, location of the parcel distribution center, attendance of parcel delivery men and presence of parcel owners in the residence while parcel is being delivered. On the basis of the above analysis, our project team implemented a new parcel delivery system by locating parcel delivery centers within a 30-mile radius of parcel owners. As part of the project implementation, the number of delivery trucks has been doubled with a rotational shift. The researcher used the following control chart as a project manager for improving productivity of the parcel delivery system. Figure 3: Control Chart [Note: original parcel delivery failure frequency data were used to develop the control chart and reproduction of the data required prior permission from the parcel delivery company] The violet line shows the upper control limit, the blue line indicates the lower control limit, and the green line reflects the mean value of defects. The above diagram shows that after implementing the new parcel delivery distribution network, parcel delivery faults have been reduced significantly. As the stability of the newly implemented system increased, the overall performance of the parcel delivery system has improved significantly. Level 5 – Optimization In the final phase of a PMMM, the project management team works with the senior management team of the client organization to transform its existing organizational structure into a project-centered organization structure. Organizational individuals are trained by the project management team for a specified time period in order to make employees comfortable with the newly implemented system. Our project team had designed a 1-month training program for parcel delivery staff of the organization to help them to adapt with the newly implemented distribution network. The 1-month training program had significantly helped the parcel delivery staff and employees of local distribution centers to understand the working pattern of the implemented parcel delivery system. In this way, our project team ensured the sustainability and scalability of the improved performance of the delivery system of the parcel delivery company. Organizational Strategy Generally, organizations take help of project management teams in order to implement a new system or transform the existing one into a more flexible framework. McKinsey 7S Framework can be used to link the organizational strategy with project management objectives. Figure 4: Organizational Strategy & Project Management (Source: Parker, Verlinden, Nussey, Ford, & Pathak, 2012) According to the above model, there are three phases in project management such as initiating the project, managing the project, and closing the project. In the project initiation phase, organizations identify both immediate and distant project objectives which can be understood by both internal stakeholders such as employees, and external stakeholders such as suppliers, partners, etc. Stummer and Zuchi (2010) pointed out that project managers use key organizational members in order to communicate the vision statement to probable organizational participants in the project management. In the project planning phase, project managers break down the organization structure with the help of senior level management of the company in order to reduce resistance from organizational members regarding replacement of the old system. In this situation, the existing management system goes though recalibration in order to create a flexible organizational environment which can positively accept the changes brought about by the newly implemented system. In the project execution phase, the project management team implements a new system and provides an extensive amount of training to project members in order to make them comfortable with the working pattern of the new system. In this phase, organizations use different strategies such as brainstorming, periodic knowledge sessions, training and development to enhance the common knowledge about the newly implemented system among organizational members. Stummer and Zuchi (2010) stated that managers even change their management style in order to encourage employees to participate in the project management program and try to create an organizational environment of knowledge sharing and learning. Many organizations distribute both financial and non-financial rewards to project members in order to align their interest with the organizational objectives. In this way, the project management team interlinks the organizational objectives with each step of project management. Project Communication Van Donk and Molloy (2008) pointed out that project managers use different communication methods to communicate project objectives and advancement of the project to its pertinent stakeholders. The most prominent stakeholder for a project manager is the client organization, and then comes the internal stakeholders such as employees of the organization, and external stakeholders such as suppliers and, most importantly, customers. It is essential for project managers to satisfy the interests of these stakeholders in order to make the project successful. For example, throughout the project, the project managers need to communicate frequently with the senior level management of the client organization in order to get required resources for implementing a new system, developing training programs for organizational individuals, etc. Hence, it is expected from a project manager to satisfy the interests of the client organization. In many cases, it has been observed that project managers use a two-way communication method to communicate the value of the project to its stakeholders. For example, the personal administration technique is used by project managers in order gather feedback from customers about a newly implemented system while group meetings are used by project managers to communicate the project value to suppliers and other stakeholders. Van Donk and Molloy (2008) rightly pointed out that clattering in messages or ambiguous communications might create a problem for project managers to communicate the vision and objectives to employees who would participate in the project implementation phase in order to reduce their resistance level regarding the displacement of the existing system. Modern project managers extensively use online communications such as e-mail, video conferencing, virtual workshops, etc. to integrate the project communication in a systematic manner. Project Quality Pellegrinelli and Garangna (2009) stressed the cost factor as the most important quality variable for any project management. A project has to fulfill different quality criteria such as completion within time, completion within a specified budget, precise solution to the project problem, higher return on investment for the project, etc. There are three aspects of project quality such as: 1) quality planning: determining the quality objective of the project by a systematic plan; 2) quality assurance: using both qualitative and quantitative matrices to determine the difference between desired quality output and actual quality output; and 3) quality control: using operational techniques to improve the quality of the project. Earned Value Analysis (EVA) Project managers widely use earned value analysis as a program management tool for quality measurement. Nagrecha (2002) defined EVA as the extended version of traditional accounting measurement focusing on the actual cost of a project and accomplished expenditure. Project managers use EVA to calculate actual expenditure on a given project, which helps managers to get the idea of probable risk factors for the project and adopt a risk mitigation plan complemented with a project schedule, actual cost, etc. to mitigate the risk. EVA is basically a set of guidelines with which project managers can address cost variables of project quality management. The EVA model can be described in the following pictorial manner. Figure 5: Earned Value Analysis (Source: Nagrecha, 2002) Successful Projects Troubled Projects The project has incurred no more than 5% beyond the estimated budget. The project has incurred more than 30% beyond the estimated budget. The project has taken no more than 5% beyond the predetermined time schedule. The project has taken more than 30% beyond the predetermined time schedule. All the major project deliverables are completed. The client is extremely dissatisfied with the progress of the project. Client is satisfied with the overall quality of the project. Client is losing interest in the outcome of the project and a communication barrier is created between client and project manager. (Source: Ten Step, 2007) Conclusion It is evident from the above discussion that an organization should work in co-ordination with its project management team in order to reach the maturity level in terms of project management. Using the McKinsey 7S model, an organization should break down its structure or create well defined project objectives to align the interests of internal stakeholders with the project implementation process. Senior level management should create an environment of knowledge sharing and learning in order increase productivity of the newly implemented system. Such measures are needed to increase probability of success for any organization that is able to reach maturity in terms of project management. References Killen, C. P., & Hunt, R. A. (2013). Robust project portfolio management: Capability evolution and maturity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 131–151. Korbel, A., & Benedict, R. (2007). Application of the project management maturity model to drive organisational improvement in a state owned corporation. Retrieved from http://www.aipm.com.au/documents/3G/Korbel_Benedict_PMMM-driving-Org-Imp.pdf. Nagrecha, S. (2002). An introduction to earned value analysis. Retrieved from http://www.pmiglc.org/COMM/Articles/0410_nagrecha_eva-3.pdf. Parker, D., Verlinden, A., Nussey, R., Ford, M., & Pathak, R. D. (2012). Critical evaluation of project-based performance management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(4), 407–419. Pellegrinelli, S., & Garangna, L. (2009). Towards a conceptualization of PMOs as agents and subjects of change and renewal. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 649–56. Rad, P. F., & Levin, G. (2006). Project portfolio management tools and techniques. New York, NY: IIL Publishing. Stummer, M., & Zuchi, D. (2010). Developing roles in change processes – a case study from a public sector organisation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 384–394. Ten Step. (2007). Rescuing troubled projects. Retrieved from http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/pmo/pdfs/additionalreading/RescuingTroubledProjects.pdf. Van Donk, D. P., & Molloy, E. (2008). From organising as projects to projects as organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 129–37. Read More